Review

Reducing the fat content in ground beef without sacricing quality: A review
M. Susan Brewer
Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition, University of Illinois, 202 Agricultural Bioprocess Laboratory, 1302 West Pennsylvania, Urbana, IL, 61801, USA
a b s t r a c t a r t i c l e i n f o
Article history:
Received 16 November 2011
Received in revised form 17 January 2012
Accepted 21 February 2012
Keywords:
Reduced fat
Beef
Gums
Carbohydrates
Proteins
Added water
Americans are becoming more health conscious in their food choices and many are interested in reducing di-
etary fat intake. Fat replacers can affect meat avor both by adding avors of their own, by reducing the orig-
inal aroma-generating substrate (fat) and by altering release of aroma compounds. When fat is removed from
meat, water is generally added to replace it. Water-binding compounds can be added to prevent the added
water from cooking out or evaporating and to prevent patty shrinkage. Fat replacers are generally classied
by their composition: protein-based replacers including whey, soy and collagen, lipid-based substances such
as soy lecithin which function as emulsiers maintaining the fat that is retained distributed in the product,
and carbohydrate-based substances including ours (wheat, soy, oat), starches (potato, modied corn starch,
tapioca) and gums (carrageenan, xanthin). Duplication of the characteristics contributed by fat often requires
a combination of replacers to address juiciness and texture (rmness) without negatively impacting avor.
Published by Elsevier Ltd.
Contents
1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386
2. Quality attributes contributed by fat in ground beef . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386
2.1. Flavor. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 386
2.2. Texture . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
3. Reducing fat content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
3.1. Protein-based fat replacers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 387
3.1.1. Whey . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388
3.1.2. Collagen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 388
3.1.3. Soy protein . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389
3.2. Fat-based fat replacers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389
3.3. Carbohydrate-based fat replacers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 389
3.3.1. Starches and ours . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390
3.3.2. Tapioca. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390
3.3.3. Konjac . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 390
3.3.4. Maltodexrin and cyclodextrin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
3.3.5. Fiber . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
3.4. Gums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 391
3.4.1. Carrageenans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392
3.4.2. Alginic acid (sodium alginate) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 392
3.4.3. Xanthan, locust bean and guar gums . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393
3.4.4. Combinations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393
4. Conclusions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393
Meat Science 91 (2012) 385395
Tel.: +1 217 244 2867; fax: +1 217 333 3585.
E-mail address: msbrewer@uiuc.edu.
0309-1740/$ see front matter. Published by Elsevier Ltd.
doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.02.024
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Meat Science
j our nal homepage: www. el sevi er . com/ l ocat e/ meat sci
1. Introduction
In 2009, 26.9 billion pounds of beef was consumed in the United
States (Mathews & McConnell, 2010), down from 27.3 billion pounds
the previous year and 28 billion pounds in 2004. Ground beef is the
most commonly purchased form of beef in the United States due to
its price and preparatory versatility. Due to its exibility, its use is
pervasive in households, schools, restaurants, and in the fast-food in-
dustry. In the US, approximately 42% of beef is consumed as ground
beef (Davis & Lin, 2005).
Beef is an excellent source of protein, iron, zinc, niacin and vita-
mins B6 and B12 however, ground beef is signicantly higher in fat
than beef sirloin and signicantly higher than poultry and sh
(Table 1; Brewer & Hatch, 2010). The 2005 Dietary Food Guidelines
stress the importance of a diet low in fat. Total fat intake should
represent 20 to 35% of calories; saturated fat should not exceed
10% of total caloric intake. The USDA has recommended dietary
fat reduction in the wake of increasing obesity and its associated
health risks (cardiovascular disease, stroke, certain cancers; My
Plate 2011). Americans are becoming more health conscious in their
food choices; many are interested in reducing their dietary fat intake.
7580% of consumers regularly consume low-fat or fat-free products
(Cooper & Michaelides, 2004; Ressurreccion, 2003). This may be a
function of the increased awareness of the association between poor
diet, morbidity and mortality. In addition, the USDA has mandated
that foods for programs such as the National School Lunch Program
must undergo fat reduction. Among the most important factors
inuencing meat choices in the U.S. are (1) health concerns, (2) chang-
ing demographics, (3) convenience and food consumption away from
home, (4) changes in distribution, and (5) price (Ressurreccion, 2003;
USDA/ERS, 2002).
Overall, beef and pork have become leaner over the past 20 years.
However, some traditional products, such as ground beef, frankfurters
and fresh pork sausage, remain high in fat. Ground beef available at
retail ranges from 70% to 97% lean (3% to 27% fat; Table 1). For this
reason, these products offer the greatest opportunity for fat reduction
by reformulation. To be successful, reduced-fat ground beef must be
organoleptically, nutritionally, and functionally acceptable to con-
sumers (McMindes, 1991). Because sausage is ultimately a ground,
emulsied meat system, many of the fat-reduction approaches have
been examined in them (Hemeida, El-Naggar, & El-Magoli, 2002;
Lyons, Kerry, Morrissey, & Buckley, 1998).
Meat is composed of muscle and connective tissues, fat, and water.
During processing, these components can interact in a variety of ways
and are ultimately responsible for the functional properties of the
system. Egbert, Huffman, Chen, and Dylewski (1991) reported that
avor intensity, juiciness, and tenderness are directly correlated
with fat content and that reducing fat content reduces overall accept-
ability. Reducing the fat content of ground beef to 10% often results in
a cooked product that is bland and dry with a hard, rubbery texture
(Keeton, 1994; Youssef & Barbut, 2011). When the total fat content
is reduced, optimizing the remaining fat content and cooking param-
eters to produce a good quality nished product are necessary to
meet consumer expectations, and, ultimately result in consumption
of lower fat, lower calorie products.
Comparing ground beef samples containing 5% to 30% fat, Carpenter
and King (1969) found that those containing 15% fat had the best a-
vor, those with 20% fat had the best texture and were rated highest
for overall satisfaction, and those containing 30% fat were most juicy.
Troutt et al. (1992a) reported that low-fat patties (5% and 10%) were
rmer, more crumbly, less juicy and avorful, and caused less oily coat-
ing of the mouth than patties containing 20% to 30% fat. Similar results
have been reported for frankfurters (Cengiz & Gokoglu, 2007). Cooking
to a higher temperature (77 C) vs cooking to a lower temperature
(71 C) accentuated these palatability differences. Keeton (1994)
reported similar results on reducing fat content to 10%.
Formulating low-fat ground beef with quality characteristics sim-
ilar to its higher fat counterpart has been a signicant challenge. A
number of water-binding bers and gums have the capacity to re-
place fat in meat products and contribute a functional human-
health component (Biswas, Kumar, Bhosle, Sahoo, & Chatli, 2011).
2. Quality attributes contributed by fat in ground beef
Ultimately, meat quality is dened in terms of consumer accept-
ability which includes tenderness, juiciness and avor. Because they
are the most important traits dening consumer acceptance, tender-
ness and avor consistency are important (Robbins et al., 2003). In
addition, appearance characteristics (color, amount of fat, amount of
visible water) have a signicant impact on consumer expectations
(Brewer & Novakofski, 2008).
2.1. Flavor
Flavor results from the combination of basic tastes (sweet, sour,
bitter, salt, umami) and odors derived from a variety of volatile com-
pounds. Beef avors and aromas develop primarily during the heating
process. They are generated when water-soluble substances dissolve
in the saliva then bind to receptors in the taste buds and/or when vol-
atile compounds bind to receptors in the olfactory bulb (nasal cavity)
Table 1
Nutrient content (per 100 g) of selected dietary protein sources.
Source: USDA Nutrient Data Base (2011). http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/index.html.
Nutrient
Protein Fat Cal. Iron Zinc Thiamin Riboavin Niacin B6 B12
Beef sirloin select
a
27.17 6.95 179 1.68 5.0 0.08 0.14 7.94 0.60 1.30
70/30 ground beef
b
22.86 15.54 273 2.41 5.82 0.04 0.18 5.03 0.33 2.37
80/20 ground beef
b
24.04 15.94 246 2.59 6.07 0.04 0.18 5.53 0.36 2.66
90/10 ground beef
b
25.21 10.68 204 2.77 6.33 0.04 0.18 6.03 0.38 2.95
Beef frankfurter 11.24 29.57 330 1.51 2.46 0.04 0.15 2.37 0.09 1.72
Pork loin
a
25.70 11.89 217 0.89 3.41 0.51 0.40 6.88 0.86 0.80
Pork sausage
b
19.43 28.36 339 1.36 2.08 0.29 0.20 6.26 0.33 1.18
Chicken breast
a
31.02 3.57 165 1.04 1.00 0.07 0.11 13.71 0.60 0.32
Turkey
a
28.80 7.86 194 1.36 1.97 0.50 0.13 6.68 0.47 0.35
Pinto beans, boiled 9.01 0.65 143 2.09 0.98 0.19 0.06 0.32 0.23 0.00
American cheese 22.15 31.25 375 0.39 2.99 0.03 0..35 0.07 0.07 0.07
Peanut butter 25.09 50.39 588 1.87 2.91 0.07 0.11 13.04 0.54 0.00
Tuna, in water 25.51 0.82 116 1.53 0.77 0.03 0.07 13.28 0.35 2.99
Salmon
b
22.10 12.35 206 0.34 0.43 0.34 0.14 8.05 0.65 2.80
a
Roasted.
b
Pan broiled.
386 M.S. Brewer / Meat Science 91 (2012) 385395
and stimulate a response (Brewer, 2007). Aroma is the most impor-
tant contributor to meat (species) identication (Matsuishi, Igeta,
Takeda, & Okitani, 2006).
Over half of the volatiles identied in cooked meat result fromlipids
which serve as primary sources of avor compounds. Oxidation of un-
saturated fatty acids, especially when induced by heat, results in volatile
compounds whichcan produce the characteristic odors of specic types
of meat. Lipids serve as a source of avor constituents, either directly
(unmodied) or indirectly (reaction products) by allowing formation
of compounds such as aldehydes, free fatty acids, ketones, alcohols,
and hydrocarbons. These compounds have low detection thresholds
and are important contributors to meat avor (Mottram, 1998; Rowe,
2002). The lipid present in meat includes subcutaneous, intramuscular,
intermuscular, intramyocellular neutral fat, as well as structural phos-
pholipids. Intramuscular fat is a major source of volatile compounds.
In beef, 12-methyltridecanal derived from lipid oxidation has been
identied as an important contributor to species avor; it occurs in fair-
ly high concentrations in beef, and only in small amounts in other spe-
cies (Guth & Grosch, 1993, 1995). This compound exhibits a distinctly
beef-like aroma. Bis(2-methyl-3-furyl)disulde and methional are also
unique compounds in beef (MacLeod, 1998). 2-Hexanone as well as
3,3-dimethylhexanal may also be responsible for some of the character-
istic avor of beef (Imadon & Spanier, 1994). Adding fat to lean meat
can enhance species differences. Increasing fat level (11%, 18%, 22%) in-
creases 2-butanone, 2-pentanone and3-hydroxy-2-butanone inground
beef patties (El-magoli, Larola, & Hansen, 1995). The formation of alde-
hydes, unsaturated alcohols, ketones, and lactones.
Fat replacers can affect meat avor both by adding avors of their
own, by reducing the original aroma-generating substrate (fat) and
by altering release of aroma compounds. Chevance et al. (2000)
reported that some fat replacers (tapioca, maltodextrins) can delay
release of some volatile aroma compounds while others (oat ber)
enhance their release implying that while they may not affect
aroma/avor per se, they may affect the perceived intensity over
time. Simple changes in processing can also affect beef avor.
2.2. Texture
The term texture includes a variety of kinesthetic sensory char-
acteristics: those perceived prior to mastication (particle size, oili-
ness), those perceived during mastication (tenderness, juiciness)
and those perceived after mastication (brous residue, mouth coat-
ing). Muscle foods have an inherent set of textural characteristics as-
sociated with them by the nature of the raw material. These include
(muscle) bers, uid/fat exudation, and connective tissue. Texture is
a critical characteristic of meat in terms of consumer acceptability.
Water is the major component of muscle tissue, striated muscle is
about 75% water. This water is structurally arranged in layers around
polar molecules and between layers of cellular materials. It has re-
stricted movement due to a variety of forces (Brewer, 2011). For
this reason, the ability of meat tissue to hold on to water is an integral
component of its texture. Water is held primarily by contractile pro-
teins. For this reason increasing temperature and decreasing pH can
dramatically increase cook and drip losses, and decrease juiciness
and overall acceptability of ground beef (Brewer & Novakofski,
1999; Offer & Knight, 1988; Siegel & Schmidt, 1979). Use of polypho-
sphates has been adopted for pH optimization to enhance water-
holding capacity and juiciness (Schultz, Russell, & Wierbicki, 1972).
Because of the quality attributes contributed by fat, formulating a
low-fat ground beef product with avor and texture quality equal to
its full-fat counterpart is difcult. Fat removed must be replaced by
ingredients capable of contributing the quality attributes contributed
by fat. Combinations of starches, lipids, and proteins can be used as
effective fat replacers in low fat ground beef patties (Warner,
Eskins, Fanta, Nelsen, & Rocke, 2001). Some of the rst commercial
low-fat formulations were made with carrageenan, oat bran or ber,
soy isolate, starches, maltodextrins, vegetable oils and/or phosphates
(Egbert, Huffman, Chen, & Dylewski, 1991; Taki, 1991).
3. Reducing fat content
Fat replacers are generally classied by their composition: protein-
based, lipid-based, and carbohydrate-based. Processing generally re-
mains unchanged (Roth, McKeith, & Brewer, 1999). During the rst
grind, the beef is ground alone. During the second grind, the replacer
and any other ingredients are added. Appropriate patty formation pro-
cedures can be used to enhance low-fat ground beef quality. Liu and
Berry (1998) reported that increasing patty thickness from 0.95 cm to
1.27 cm decreased sensory rmness and increased initial juiciness.
Overall palatability of lower fat ground beef (10%) compared to higher
fat beef (20%) can be improved by conducting the nal grind through
a 3/16 inch plate rather than a 1/8 inch plate (Egbert et al., 1991).
The amount of fat and water lost during cooking of ground beef can
be due to fat and moisture content, particle size and pHof rawmaterials
in addition to cooking rate and end-point temperature (Brewer, 2011;
Brewer and Novakofski, 1999; Brewer, McKeith, & Britt, 1992). Reduc-
ing fat content can increase uid loss (cooking loss) and patty shrinkage
(Mallika, Prabhakar, & Reddy, 2009). Reducing fat content from 25% to
10% in comminuted beef products also affects hardness (Youssef &
Barbut, 2011).
A signicant amount of work has been undertaken in an effort to
model the changes that occur in the physical characteristics of cooked
ground beef patties with the ultimate goal being to understand and
duplicate the higher fat products in a lower fat version using various
added ingredients (Velioglu, Velioglu, Boyaci, Yilmaz, & Kurultay,
2010). In general, the approach is to substitute the fat with added
water usually bound with a protein- or carbohydrate-based substi-
tute, or a synthetic compound. Additives including fat replacers (in-
gredients that contribute no or fewer calories but have no effect on
organoleptic properties), fat mimetics (substances that mimic some,
but not all, of the characteristics of fat), fat substitutes and analogs
(molecules whose physical and thermal characteristics imitate those
of fat but have fewer or no calories) have been evaluated (Keeton,
1994). Reformulation with fat substitutes can reduce meat particle
binding, alter product color, and reduce beef avor.
Because water is the major component in muscle tissue, reducing
the fat content usually means increasing the water content which has
been a challenge. Because fat assists in heat penetration, a down-side
to water addition is the longer cooking times required. When water
replaces fat, heat penetration slows, increasing the time needed to
reach the proper internal temperature for an adequate thermal treat-
ment. In general, substances that bind water are added as fat mi-
metics, ingredients that have distinctly different chemical structures
from fat (Johnson, 2000). Most often protein or carbohydrate-based,
they offer the physiochemical and eating quality characteristics of
fat. Many function as emulsiers in the food system.
A variety of nonmeat adjuncts including carbohydrate-based sub-
stances including gums (alginate, carrageenan, xanthan), bers (pea
ber, oat ber), starches (tapioca starch, modied food starches) and
other carbohydrate compounds (pectin, micro-crystalline cellulose),
protein-based compounds (whey, collagen, legume proteins) and fat-
based compounds (soy lecithin which serves as an emulsier) have
been assessed in low-fat ground beef (Desmond, Troy, & Buckley,
1998a,b). Hydrated legume (soy, pea and peanut protein) and wheat
proteins can be textured (like meat) and used as fat replacers. Most in-
crease water holding capacity compared to full-fat controls, however
they have varying effects on texture.
3.1. Protein-based fat replacers
The tertiary (three-dimensional) structure of proteins can be al-
tered by pH, heat or enzymatic denaturation enabling themto behave
387 M.S. Brewer / Meat Science 91 (2012) 385395
more like fat (Cooper & Michaelides, 2004). Denaturation can alter
the textural, gel-forming and water holding abilities especially of
vegetable-based proteins such as soy, wheat, pea, and peanut.
Micro-particulation via the simultaneous application of heat and
high shear can result in micro-particulated proteins that coat the
mouth allowing avor to reach receptors more slowly (Mallika et
al., 2009).
3.1.1. Whey
Whey protein separated from whole milk can function as a fat re-
placer. Whey protein concentrates are considered to be fat mimetics
because they have distinctly different chemical structures from fat
(Johnson, 2000; Shand, 1997). Having both hydrophilic and hydro-
phobic regions facilitates their association with fat and with protein
and water. Whey proteins have good gel-forming characteristics
and water-binding properties that add moistness to the meat matrix,
maximizing cooking yield and minimizing shrinkage. They are high in
protein (75%; Table 2). Addition of tripolyphosphates and lactose to
whey-containing formulations can improve juiciness and overall ac-
ceptability of low-fat meat products (El-magoli et al., 1995; Salwa,
Laroia, & Hansen, 1996). Addition of calcium also induces gelation of
pre-heated whey (Barbut & Foegeding, 1993).
The most commonly used whey protein concentrates in meat
products are 34% and 80% protein. These fractions maintain their
water binding and gelling abilities in lower pH (b6.0) environments
allowing for the addition (and binding) of water to meat products.
These gel-forming characteristics and water-binding properties add
moistness to the meat matrix. Specic properties can be selectively
enhanced during the production of whey protein concentrates by
controlling production parameters. Pre-treating whey proteins at
70 C is required to achieve cold-gelling ability. During the manufac-
ture of meat products, cold-gelling whey protein concentrate can be
added during vacuum tumbling, followed by addition of salt. The
salt gels the mixture and improves product yield (Johnson, 2000).
Whey proteins can undergo heat-induced gelation forming a protein
matrix that binds water and meat juices increasing juiciness and
yield, and reducing shrinkage in reduced-fat products. Lowfat ground
beef patties formulated with whey protein concentrates have sensory
characteristics similar to full fat beef.
Serdarolu (2006) found that adding 2% or 4% whey protein to
meat balls increases cooking yield, fat and moisture retention regard-
less of the fat level (5%, 10%, 20%) without affecting juiciness. Howev-
er, other groups have found less signicant effects. El-magoli et al.
(1995) found that adding whey protein concentrate (1% to 4%) to
low-fat (b11% fat) ground beef patties increases chewiness. Juiciness
and overall acceptability of low fat ground beef patties containing 4%
whey protein were scored more highly than those containing less
whey. Adding whey protein and 10% water increased cook yield and
decreased shrinkage. Other texture-modifying additives (CaCl
2
and
hydroxyl-propylmethylcellulose; 0.3%) had negative effects on yield
and shrinkage.
Adding milk proteins in conjunction with other ingredients can
have benecial effects. Hale, Carpenter, and Walsh (2002) reported
that hydrated textured whey protein/corn starch (2:1) added to
beef (40%) produced cooked patties acceptable to consumers with
less cook loss and reduction in diameter after cooking, however
they were less cohesive than all-beef patties. Substituting meat pro-
tein with sodium caseinate, milk protein isolates or whey protein iso-
lates at varying levels (1315%) in emulsied beef batters prepared
with canola oil (25%) can decrease cook loss, and increase hardness
and springiness (Yousseff & Barbut, 2010). Whey protein isolates
form distinct protein gel regions within the meat batter matrix.
These gel regions appear to interact with the meat protein matrix.
Adding 1% or 2% whey powder, skim milk powder or their combina-
tion can increase cooking yield, moisture content and avor retention
in cooked meat patties. Addition of skim milk powder can decrease
cooked patty hardness and cohesiveness, however whey powder in-
creases hardness compared to controls (Andic, Zorba, & Tuncturk,
2010).
Injecting beef with whey-containing solutions can be benecial to
quality characteristics. Beef injected at 120% (over rawweight) with a
brine formulated to result in a concentration of 3.5% whey protein
concentrate and 0.7% sodium chloride reduced cook losses. Total
weight loss decreased from >28% for non-injected beef to ~7% for
injected beef (Szerman et al., 2007). Injecting beef with solutions con-
taining sodium or potassium lactates, whey protein concentrate, car-
rageenan or yeast extract decreased WarnerBratzler shear force and
increased sensory tenderness ratings, compared to non-injected con-
trols (Chrystall, 1994; Walsh et al., 2010). All of these ingredients, ex-
cept yeast extract, added in water increased cook yield. Use of whey
proteins has been shown to have similar effects in pork products.
Replacing fat with whey protein concentrate (1%) and water (9%) in
low-fat breakfast sausage can produce a highly palatable product
that is acceptable to consumers (Wang, Fligner, & Mangino, 2006).
Whey protein isolate (4%) and its hydrolysate can also inhibit lipid
oxidation in cooked pork patties (Pea-Ramosa & Xiong, 2003). This
effect on oxidation may be due to the Fe
3+
-binding ability of lactofer-
rin in whey protein concentrate which may prevent the iron fromact-
ing as a catalyst for lipid oxidation (Cheng, Wang, & Ockerman, 2009).
Whey is relatively bland; it absorbs fat and binds avor chemicals
readily. It can be added to ground beef directly with water in the
powdered form or mixed with the water before grinding. Either
way, no drastic alteration in processing methods is necessary. While
fat mimetics like whey protein concentrate do add cost to reduced-
fat meat products, the water retention which they afford often off-
sets this cost increase. According to Johnson (2000), using whey pro-
tein concentrate can result in an ingredient cost savings of 10% to 20%
in low-fat meat products. If cost effectiveness is a primary concern,
use of the lowest protein content whey protein concentrate which
will give the desired results is generally the most efcient.
3.1.2. Collagen
Collagen is the protein that forms the structure surrounding mus-
cle bers and which connects muscles to other parts of the animal
body. Rened into gelatin, it is about 85% protein (Table 2). Because
of its ability to bind water and compatibility with meat protein, it is
a good candidate as a fat replacer. Campbell, Hunt, Kropf, and
Kastner (1996) added de-sinewed-shank (7% or 10%) to low fat
(10% or 20%) ground beef. Patties containing de-sinewed-shank had
fewer perceptible connective tissue particles and were juicier than
Table 2
Nutrient content (per 100 g) of selected fat-replacers.
Source: USDA Nutrient Data Base (2011). http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/
search/index.htmlwww.fmcbiopolymer.com/Food/Ingredients//Factors.aspx.
Nutrient
Water,
g
Lipids,
g
Protein,
g
Carbohydrate,
g
Fiber,
g
Calcium,
mg
Whey 3.19 1.07 74.46 12.93 0 796
Soy our 4.61 8.90 45.51 34.93 16 285
Soy concentrate 7.0 0.46 58.13 30.91 5.5 363
Soy protein isolate 4.98 3.39 80.69 7.36 5.5 178
Gelatin 13.0 0.10 85.60 0 0 55
Chickpea our 10.28 6.69 23.39 57.82 10.8 45
Oat our 8.55 9.12 14.66 65.70 6.5 55
Peanut our 7.8 21.9 33.8 31.27 15.8 130
Potato our 6.52 0.34 6.9 83.10 5.9 65
Rice our 11.89 1.42 5.59 80.13 2.4 2
Sorghum our 10.6 3.29 7.83 77.47 6.6 12
Tapioca 10.99 0.02 0.19 88.69 0.9 20
Wheat our 12.0 1.48 9.71 76.22 2.4 20
Barley 12.11 1.6 10.5 74.52 10.1 32
Cornstarch 8.32 0.05 0.26 91.27 0.9 2
388 M.S. Brewer / Meat Science 91 (2012) 385395
patties made from whole-ground-shank. Graves, Delmore, Mandigo,
and Calkins (1994) used 2% shredded collagen bers and 8% water to
produce a reduced-fat groundbeef patty withtextural and sensory char-
acteristics that exceeded those manufactured from 18% fat ground beef.
Rao and Henrickson (1986) used wet collagen (bovine hide) to re-
place 0%, 10% or 20% of the lean in a ground beef patty formulation.
Up to 20% of the lean could be replaced with collagen in ground beef
and have little effect on nutritive value. Chavez, Henrickson, and Rao
(1986) found that adding collagen (bovine hide) at 0%, 10% or 20% to
ground beef increased juiciness but decreased avor, texture and over-
all acceptability. Collagen had no negative effect oncooking loss indicat-
ing that it bound moisture. It decreased cohesiveness and the rate of
rancidity development and increased patty color lightness.
Adding raw or pre-heated (10%) connective tissue to low-fat
(b5%) restructured beef increased Instron tensile strength and tended
to reduce beefy avor compared to control products (Kenney et al.,
1992). Raw connective tissue increased cook yield while addition of
1% gelatin reduced cook yield. Increasing modied connective tissue
(0% to 40%) in meat batters has been shown to increase batter pH,
emulsication temperature, and batter extrusion values and decrease
thermal processing yield losses (Eilert, Blackmer, Mandigo, & Calkins,
1993). Authors suggest that adding modied beef connective tissue
may be an effective mechanism for reducing these losses in low-fat
meat batters without major batter stability changes. Addition of 20%
connective tissue has been shown to improve processing yields and
decrease cohesiveness of 10% fat/30% water added frankfurters
(Eilert, Mandigo, & Sumner, 1996). Because collagen is a natural com-
ponent of meat, the product can be sold as ground beef.
3.1.3. Soy protein
Soy protein can be added to meat products as soy our (50% protein),
soy concentrate (70% protein) or soy protein isolate (90% protein;
Table 2). Ingroundbeef, it canimprove tenderness, increase moisture re-
tention, decrease cooking shrink, and inhibit rancidity (Kotula & Berry,
1986). However, large amounts may cause the product to be soft and
have an undesirable avor. In emulsied meat products, soy protein ef-
fectively binds water but does not emulsify fat as well as salt soluble
muscle protein. Ahmad, Rizawi, and Srivastava (2010) reported that ad-
dition of soy protein isolate can improve the texture, juiciness and color
of a buffalo meat sausage emulsion.
Up to 20% textured soy protein can be incorporated into ground
beef to decrease cooking loss and decrease evaporative loss however,
it affects sensory characteristics (Dignam, Tseng, & Smith-Nury, 1979;
Kilic, Kankaya, Ekici, & Orhan, 2010). Berry and Wergin (1993) found
soy isolate imparted textural characteristics to beef patties that were
more similar to those of all-beef patties than did soy concentrate or
our. However, those containing soy our had the highest cooking
yields. Ziprin et al. (1981) rehydrated (1:2) defatted ours, protein
concentrates and protein isolates produced from glandless cotton-
seed, peanut, and soybean and added them (10%) to lean ground
beef (fat content adjusted to 20%). All treatments had higher cook
yields than all-beef patties and contained less fat. Increasing soy pro-
tein concentration (up to 5%) has been shown to increase water hold-
ing capacity and reduce total cooking loss in extra lean (10% fat)
ground beef patties. Patties containing texturized soy protein were
harder and more cohesive than those containing soy protein our
(Heywood, Myers, Bailey, & Johnson, 2002; Kassama, Ngadi, &
Raghavan, 2003). Of several formulations, Kassem and Emara
(2010) reported that soy-containing products had the lowest
(~16%) cooking loss, followed by controls (~18%); vegetable (peas
and carrots)-containing burger had the highest (~20%).
Substituting texturized soy protein or cooked ground soybeans for
30% of the ground beef in meat loaf mixtures has been shown to have
varying effects (Ali, Perry, & van Duyne, 1982). Hydrated textured
soybean protein (15 or 30%) used to replace meat in a ground beef
mixture can produce patties that are more tender than controls,
however they have less beefy avor and the overall avor quality is
lower (Deliza, Saldivar, Germani, Benassi, & Cabral, 2002). Patties
containing 30% soy protein shrink less than controls or those contain-
ing 15% soy. Substituting up to 15% of the beef mince with legumes
(navy beans, chick peas, mung beans, red kidney beans) can result
in acceptable products (Muller & Redden, 1995). Those containing
10% chick peas were most preferred. Legume substitution reduces
cooking losses via evaporation and fat loss. Rhee and Smith (1983)
reported that adding up to 30% rehydrated, textured soy protein to
ground beef patties (8%, 16% or 27% fat) decreased fat content in the
raw patties. It decreased cholesterol content in the 8% and 16% fat
patties. Rentfrow, Weingartner, Carr, McKeith, and Brewer (2004)
noted that more than 30% replacement of ground beef with non-
solvent extracted textured soy protein increased off-avor. However,
Lui, Huffman, Egbert, McCaskey, and Liu (1991) found that patties
containing textured isolated soy protein (25%) to lean beef (10% fat)
did not differ in beef avor from controls.
Zhu, Robbins, Cadwallader, and Brewer (2001) reported that meaty,
burnt and eggy aroma intensities were lower in the headspace of all-
beef burger than in the headspace of hydrated soy protein isolate-beef
burger; fatty aroma was slightly higher in the all beef burger. Gas chro-
matographyolfactometry of decreasing headspace samples revealed
that soy-beef burger headspace contained more 2-methyl-3-furanthiol
and hydrogen sulde than all-beef burger headspace. Total volatile sul-
fur components was higher insoy-beef burger headspace, due mainly to
a very high concentration of hydrogen sulde. Methanethiol, dimethyl-
sulde, dimethyldisulde, and dimethyltrisulde concentrations were
higher in all-beef burger headspace. These results indicated that soy
protein isolate does alter the headspace aroma of beef burgers. Soy pro-
tein isolate antioxidants have been shown to inhibit oxidation resulting
in less rancid odor, hexanal, and total volatiles in a model system in a
dose-dependent fashion (Wu & Brewer, 1994).
In both low-fat (8%) and higher fat (20%) beef patties, soy isolate,
concentrate, and our (20%) decreases beefy avor and increases off-
avor scores while a mixture of carrageenan (0.5%), starch (0.5%),
and phosphate (0.2%) does not (Brewer et al., 1992). Angor and Al-
Abdullah (2010) found that texturized soy alone increases moisture
binding and protein level, while it lowers avor score of low-fat
((14%) beef burgers compared to controls, but a combination of carra-
geenan (0.5%), texturized soy (1.5%) and trisodium phosphate (0.5%)
improves all sensory attributes.
3.2. Fat-based fat replacers
Fat-based replacers tend to be either emulsiers or lipid analogs.
Lipid analogs perform lipid-type functions without increasing calorie
content as much as fat. Emulsiers can be added to food products
which contain two dissimilar phases. The surfactant molecules adsorb
on the surface of emulsied phase by creating a dispersion reducing
interfacial tension and retarding particle occulation and separation.
Surfactant molecules have polar and non-polar portions which act
as an intermediary to combine polar and non-polar phases. Emulsi-
ers stretch the functionality of low fat levels or can even replace
the function of fat in combination with other ingredients by main-
taining hydrated ingredients in suspension.
Soy lecithin is an emulsier and thickener. In some cases, particles can
stabilize emulsions as well. Canola oil alone or pre-emulsied with pro-
tein (soy isolate, sodium caseinate, whey protein isolate) improves yield
andrestores textural characteristics of groundbeef whenfat content is re-
duced from25% to 10% (Youssef & Barbut, 2011). Pre-emulsifying canola
oil with sodium caseinate signicantly increases hardness.
3.3. Carbohydrate-based fat replacers
Carbohydrates are composed of polymers of repeating sugar
(glucose, galactose) and sugar derivatives which can bind water
389 M.S. Brewer / Meat Science 91 (2012) 385395
and increase viscosity or gel (Tomasik, 2004). Processed starches
and bers of various origins including cornstarch, rice starch, modi-
ed potato starch, and tapioca can be effectively used in meat
formulations. The starch content of these ours varies from 31 to
83 g/100 g (peanut =31, Soy=35, chickpea=58, oat =66, wheat =
76, sorghum=77, rice=80 g, potato=83, carbohydrate/100 g;
Table 2). Starch granules in the starches in ours swell when hydrat-
ed, then gelatinize when heated. They may increase in viscosity or gel
as they are cooled. Some are freezethaw stable (modied starches).
Theses starches must be functional at the pH (5.6 to 6.0) of meat.
They must provide appropriate mouth feel (particle size). Fibers can
add bulk, assisting in hydration and contributing to mouth feel in
low-fat products. Starches from corn, rice, potato, and tapioca have
these characteristics. Most carbohydrate-based fat replacers mimic
fat by stabilizing the added water in a gel-like matrix that can release
the water in a way similar to fat release.
3.3.1. Starches and ours
Starches and ours have been studied extensively as potential fat
replacers because of their ability to bind and retain moisture (Shewry
& Tatham, 2000). Flours generally increase yield and decrease shrink,
however they often added unwanted avors to the product. Effects on
texture are variable. Adding wheat germ protein our (2.0%, 3.5%,
5.0%) increases yield, juiciness, and tenderness, and decreases shrink
and cooking losses as our addition increases (Rocha-Garza & Zayas,
1995). It decreases fat content and increases moisture content com-
pared to all-beef patties. However, wheat-like aroma and avor also
increase. Adding rehydrated sorghum our (10%, 20%, 30%) to 20%
fat ground beef increases yield and decreases total cooking loss and
shrinkage in diameter (Huang, Zayas, & Bowers, 1999). Sorghum
aroma and avor, and tenderness increase, and meat aroma and a-
vor decrease in cooked patties as our level increases while juiciness
is unaffected.
It can also reduce fat retention in 20% fat-containing patties. Mod-
ied corn starch added to ground beef increases juiciness and tender-
ness of low-fat beef patties without affecting avor scores (Khalil,
2000). Patties formulated with a 1:3 starch/water ratio had a higher
in cooking yield and were less cohesive than those with 1:4 and 1:5
starch/water ratios. Liu, Xiong, Jiang, and Kong (2008) reported that
including heat-stable amylase-modied potato starch (2%, 4%) as a
fat replacer in a reduced-fat (5%, 15% fat) beef sausage emulsion re-
duced total energy (15% to 49%) compared to control (30% fat) sau-
sage. Sausages containing 15% fat and 2% potato starch had similar
hardness scores to controls (30% fat). Potato starch increased sensory
tenderness scores.
Blackeye bean our, chickpea our, lentil our and rusk (10%)
added to ground beef meatballs increase cooking yield, fat and mois-
ture retention (Serdaroglu, Yildiz-Turp, & Abrodimov, 2005). Meat-
balls containing blackeye bean our and chickpea our had higher
water holding capacity than other treatments. However, all meatballs
containing legume ours were tougher than controls. Using chickpea
meal (30%) in ground beef meat loaves also decreased beef aroma and
avor (Shaner & Baldwin, 1979). Chickpea addition resulted in an in-
tense beany avor and loss of juiciness in cooked products, however,
at this level, it decreased cooking loss the most.
Adding hydrated, cracked waxy hull-less barley (10%) to low-fat
(10% fat) and medium-fat (20% fat) ground beef increases cook
yield and water retention (Bond, Marchello, & Slanger, 2001). Based
on Instron texture prole analyses, burgers containing barley are
less chewy, springy, cohesive, gummy, and hard than controls.
Addition of a carbohydrate-lipid composite (high-amylose corn-
starch, maltodextrins, canola oil) to reduced fat (10%) ground beef in-
creases moisture content, cooking yield, and fat retention compared
to 20%-fat control patties (Garzon et al., 2003). The carbohydrate
lipid composite increased tenderness and juiciness, and decreased co-
hesiveness of 10%-fat beef patties compared with 10%-fat controls.
3.3.2. Tapioca
Tapioca is derived from the tuber of the cassava plant (Tran,
Piyachomkwan, & Sriroth, 2007). It is primarily carbohydrate (89 g/
100 g; Table 2). Desmond et al. (1998b) found that adding tapioca
starch, oat ber or whey protein to low-fat beef burgers produced
products that were acceptable in terms of avor and texture. In addi-
tion, the low-fat control was the toughest and driest of the beef bur-
ger treatments. Adding tapioca starch (0 to 30 g/kg) had linear effects
on cooking characteristics (yield and water holding capacity) of low-
fat beef burgers. It had negative linear effects on WarnerBratzler and
Kramer shear force values (Desmond et al., 1998a). Compared to all-
beef patties (8% and 20% fat), tapioca starch (14%), sodium alginate
(7%) or a tapioca starch-sodium alginate combination can improve
tenderness, juiciness and cooking yields without increasing fat reten-
tion or affecting beef avor (Berry, 1997). Blends of tapioca starch, oat
ber, whey protein and a carrageenan/locust bean gum combination
have been shown to increase both cook yield and water holding ca-
pacity in cooked low-fat (10%) beef burgers (Troy, Desmond, &
Buckley, 1999). Blends containing tapioca starch, oat ber and whey
protein were acceptable in terms of both avor and texture. Once
again, the low-fat controls were the toughest and driest of the beef
burger treatments.
Tapioca starch (2%, 3%, 4%) added to low-fat (b10% fat) and medi-
um fat (>18% fat) ground buffalo increases cooking yield linearly as
tapioca level increases (Nisar, Chatli, & Sharma, 2009). Shrinkage de-
creased. Maximum avor and overall acceptability scores occurred in
low-fat patties containing 3% tapioca starch. Chevance et al. (2000)
reported that tapioca can delay the release of volatile Maillard prod-
ucts from beef burger thereby affecting avor.
Both tapioca starch and whey protein can partially offset some of
the changes which occur when fat is replaced with added water in
low-fat frankfurters. As a fat replacer in beef frankfurters, cassava
starch can decrease total lipids by 70% (Sampaio, Castellucci, Pinto e
Silva, & Torres, 2004). Acceptability of the cassava starch formulation
was similar to the control suggesting that the lipid content was not
the primary determiner of acceptability. Decreasing the fat content
in frankfurter formulations from12% to 5% increases cook loss and de-
creased emulsion stability, gumminess and cohesiveness (Hughes,
Mullen, & Troy, 1998). Adding either tapioca starch or whey protein
reduces cook loss and increases emulsion stability, hardness, adhe-
siveness, and chewiness.
3.3.3. Konjac
Konjac our is a water-soluble dietary ber, mainly the polysac-
charide, glucomannan derived from a tuber. It is most effectively
extracted from Amorphophallus konjac (elephant yam) by centrifuga-
tion at 75 C (Tatirat & Charoenrein, 2011). It can be used as a gelling
agent, thickener, stabilizer, emulsier and lm former. Fresh konjac is
about 13% dry matter; 64% of the dry matter is glucomannan while
30% is starch. Konjac readily dissolves in water. It can absorb 100
times its volume in water. One particle of konjac powder consists of
very long, entangled thread-like macromolecules. Water molecules
enter are absorbed into the chain, causing the particle to swell to
200 times its original volume, producing a viscous liquid. Of all the
forms of dietary ber, konjac has the highest molecular weight, is
most dense and produces mixtures with a very high viscosity. A 1%
mixture of konjac in water has a viscosity between 20,000 cP and
40,000 cP at 30 C.
Unlike xanthan, guar and locust bean gums, konjac is not inu-
enced by salt in the system (non-ionic). Konjac does not precipitate
even if the pH drops below 3.3. Konjac is unique in that it can form
thermo-reversible and thermo-irreversible gels under different con-
ditions. Konjac interacts synergistically with carrageenan, xanthan
gum, locust bean gum and starch. The addition of 0.020.03% crude
konjac to 1% xanthan gum increases the viscosity 2 to 3 times when
heated. Konjacxanthan gels are cohesive and extremely elastic.
390 M.S. Brewer / Meat Science 91 (2012) 385395
Their maximum gel strength occurs at a ratio of konjac and xanthan
between 1:2.5 and 1:4. Transglutaminase enhances gel strength and
elasticity of mybrillar proteinkonjac gels (Chin, Go, & Xiong,
2009; Lee & Chin, 2010). Transglutaminase enhances the disappear-
ance of the myosin heavy chain and the production of polymers
which, once incorporated into a gel matrix, increases water-holding
capacity.
Bonkowski (1992) patented a method for manufacturing a lowfat,
low calorie ground meat product. Whole muscle tissue is injected
with a brine solution (salt, vegetable protein [soy], dextrose, carra-
geenan, alkali metal tripolyphosphate, avoring) to 50% beyond ini-
tial weight. Injected meat is then ground and mixed with additional
brine at a ratio of 1:1.5 to 1.5:1. A second mixture is produced using
0.5 to1.5 parts vegetable protein, 4 to 6 parts ground meat, 4 to 6
parts water and 0.5 to 1.5 parts brine. The two mixtures are com-
bined, mixed then cooked (Bonkowski, 1992). Mixing may be con-
ducted under vacuum and a fatless fat blend containing the
vegetable protein (Konjac our, soy protein concentrate, crystalline
dextrose, potassium or sodiumchloride, and potassium or sodiumtri-
polyphosphate) can be added. Patanawongyuneyong (2002) patent-
ed a method wherein konjac our is dissolved in alcohol forming a
paste to which soy protein, a viscosity enhancing agent, a gelatinizing
agent and a hardening agent are added. The paste mixture is frozen
then kneaded with frozen processed meat to produce a low-fat
product.
3.3.4. Maltodexrin and cyclodextrin
Maltodextrin is a polysaccharide produced by partial hydrolysis of
starch. It consists of D-glucose units connected in chains of variable
length. The glucose units are primarily linked with (14) glycosid-
ic bonds. Maltodextrins are classied by DE (dextrose equivalent).
The higher the DE value, the shorter the glucose chain, the sweeter
the taste and the higher the solubility. Maltodextrins have a DE be-
tween 3 and 20, and can be moderately sweet or almost avorless.
Cyclodextrins are composed of 5 or more (usually 68) -D-
glucopyranoside units linked 14 (like amylose) bound together in a
ring (cyclic oligosaccharides) creating a cone. They are produced from
starch by enzymatic conversion. -cyclodextrin is a 6 sugar ring mole-
cule, -cyclodextrin is a 7 sugar ring molecule, and -cyclodextrin is an
8 sugar ring molecule. Cyclodextrins can enclose other compounds
within the ring which modies the properties of the inclusion molecule
(water solubility). Most inclusions are hydrophobic. Degradation of
these complexes is pH-based in aqueous solutions. Complexes can also
be disrupted by heat or enzymes.
Crehan, Hughes, Troy, and Buckley (2000) reported that decreasing
fat content from30% to 5% increases cook loss, decreased emulsion sta-
bility, Instron hardness, chewiness and gumminess, and increased over-
all acceptability in frankfurters. Maltodextrin (5 to 12%) added to
reduced-fat products decreases fat content, emulsion stability and
cook loss but has little effect on sensory characteristics. Maltodextrin
served as a suitable fat replacer off-setting some of the changes brought
about by fat reduction in terms of cook loss, and textural and sensory
characteristics.
3.3.5. Fiber
Vegetable-based bers (rice, oat, barley, corn, soy, pea hulls; oat
and barley endosperm; corn and wheat bran) are mixtures of beta-
glucans, amylopectins and cellulosics. Because of their small particles,
they can form smooth-textured gels (Warner et al., 2001). Warner
and Inglett (1997) used a beta-glucan/amylopectin blend to produce
a beef patty that was less chewy and juicier than the control. A 90 g
beef patty made with fat replacer (1.5%+10% water) resulted in pat-
ties containing 6 g of fat compared to 10 g of fat (in the control) and
reduced calories from 190 to 140. Some types of ber have additional
attributes which make themappealing for inclusion in meat products.
Rice bran has antioxidant properties and may retard lipid oxidation,
extending the shelf-life of ground beef patties (Shih & Daigle, 2003).
Pinero et al. (2008) reported that adding oat ber as a source of
beta-glucan (13.45%) to low-fat (b10%) beef patties improves cook-
ing yield, and fat and moisture retention compared to 20% fat control
patties. This was attributed to the water binding ability of beta-
glucan. Flavor of lower fat patties containing beta-glucan was not
liked as well as that of higher fat patties however, they were more
juicy. Oat ber had no effect on appearance, tenderness or color.
Chevance et al. (2000) found that oat ber delays the release of
most volatile avor compounds in beef burgers. Desmond et al.
(1998a) reported that adding oat ber (0 to 20 g/kg) had limited ef-
fects on yield and water holding capacity of low-fat beef burgers.
Beta-glucan gum reduces cooking loss in cooked more than carboxy-
methyl cellulose (Morin, Temelli, & McMullen, 2004). It increases the
amount of moisture held in a cooked meat protein system due to the
physical entrapment of water when compared to the high-fat control,
but is similar to the reduced-fat formulation with added water.
Adding hydrated wheat bers (50 to 150 g/kg) to ground beef as a
fat replacement reduces fat and cholesterol contents, and increases
moisture, protein and carbohydrate in both uncooked and cooked
beef burgers compared to controls (Mansour & Khalil, 1999). Fiber
improves cooking yield and texture but has no effect on color, tender-
ness, juiciness, beef avor intensity or overall palatability of beef bur-
gers compared to controls. Adding combinations of dietary ber,
starch and polydextrose to 10% fat ground beef can produce texture
traits similar to 20% ground beef, however they do not improve juic-
iness (Troutt, Hunt, Johnson, Claus, & Kastner, 1992b).
Methylcellulose and hydroxypropylmethylcellulose (0.5 or 1.0%)
had no effect on fat, moisture or protein content of raw and cooked
ground beef patties (Hill & Prusa, 1989). Cooked patties containing
were more tender and juicy, and had higher off-avor scores when
compared with patties containing methylcellulose and controls.
Both methylcellulose and hydroxypropylmethylcellulose increased
gumminess scores and decreased Instron compression values as
well as decreasing cooked meat avor.
Adding pea ber to lower fat ground beef patties can improve ten-
derness and cooking yields and reduce change in thickness during
cooking compared to all-beef controls (Anderson & Berry, 2000).
When added to 10% and 14% fat all-beef patties, pea ber had no ef-
fect on beef avor or juiciness. Fat retention in high fat ground beef
(40% and 50%) increased from 33% to between 85% and 98% when
pea ber was added (Anderson & Berry, 2001). Cooking yield was
substantially greater in ground beef containing pea ber (87% to
94%) compared to all-beef controls (52%).
Beef sausage formulated with various dietary bers (dehydrated
cabbage leaf stalks, artichoke leaves, groundnut hulls) was 20% to
40% lower in fat content, and higher in moisture, protein, ash and car-
bohydrate contents (Abo-El-Fetoh & Abdel-Razik, 2004). Fiber im-
proved cooking yield from about 84% to over 90% and decreased
hardness of uncooked and cooked sausages compared to controls.
3.4. Gums
Gums are polysaccharides that are similar to sugars but with many
more saccharide units which produces a much larger molecule. They
are tasteless to bland and odorless. Seaweeds are excellent sources of
food gums such as carrageenans. Guar gum, locust bean gum, and
pectin are derived from plants. Xanthan gum is produced by microbi-
al fermentation, while gelatin is derived from animal tissue.
Gums, such as alginates, carrageenan, guar, and xanthan can be
used in low fat meat formulations, often in combination with starches
and proteins. In general, reheating losses are lower in high-fat meat
products than in low-fat meat products. Carrageenan and xanthan
gum can reduce reheating losses, product hardness, springiness and
chewiness in high fat frankfurters as well (Mittal & Barbut, 1994).
391 M.S. Brewer / Meat Science 91 (2012) 385395
3.4.1. Carrageenans
Carrageenans, extracted from red seaweeds (Chondrus crispus),
are sulfated linear high molecular weight polysaccharides (D-galac-
tose and 3,6-anhydro-D-galactose). They are large, exible molecules
which curl into helical structures giving them the ability to form a va-
riety of gels at room temperature. Carrageenan is soluble in hot water
(40 and 70 C) above its gel melting temperature. They have been
used by the food industry for their gelling, thickening, and stabilizing
properties (Table 3). The more ester sulfates, the lower the solubility
temperature of the carrageenan and the lower the gel strength. The
primary classes of carrageenan are (1) kappa which forms strong,
rigid gels with potassium ions and react with dairy proteins, (2) iota
which forms soft gels with calcium ions, and (3) lambda which is sol-
uble in cold water but does not gel. All carrageenans are soluble in hot
water. Only the lambda form and the sodium salts of the other two
are soluble in cold water. Potassium and calcium salts of kappa and
iota carrageenan insoluble in cold water, but will swell as a function
of concentration and type of cations present and gel only in the pres-
ence of certain cations. For gel formation, carrageenan concentration
is about 1.5% by weight of the water solution (at 75 C).
Carrageenan is one of the primary ingredients that has been eval-
uated as a fat-replacer, however it is not entirely satisfactory in terms
of performance, availability, and price (McMindes, 1991). Incorporat-
ed into low-fat meat formulations, carrageenans improve the textural
characteristics of the product by decreasing toughness and increasing
juiciness (Trius, Sebranek, & Lanier, 1996). The mechanism by which
carrageenans interact with meat proteins and the other meat compo-
nents is not completely understood.
In an attempt to improve juiciness and tenderness, Egbert et al.
(1991) attempted to increase moisture retention in a low-fat ground
beef product by adding gums. Carrageenan was selected based on its
ability to form a complex with water and protein. Lin and Keeton
(1998) found that low-fat (5%, 10%), precooked, ground beef patties
containing alginate/carrageenan combinations were comparable to
regular beef patties (20% fat control) in terms of yield and textural
properties (Table 4). However, carrageenan-containing patties
tended to release more free water after cooking and reheating.
Ground beef patties with 10% fat generally had lower shear values,
cooking yields and percentages free water released compared to
those with 5% fat. Addition of 0.5% iota carrageenan and 10% water
resulted in juiciness and tenderness scores similar to those of the con-
trol. The cooked low-fat product had 58% less fat and 37% fewer calo-
ries than 20%-fat ground beef. Sensory properties of the higher fat
product were retained in the low-fat product with these modica-
tions. Thawing prior to cooking had no effect on sensory characteris-
tics of beef patties made with carrageenan (Bigner-George & Berry,
2000).
Increasing carrageenan concentration from 0.3% to 0.7% in low-fat
(b3% fat) frankfurters has been shown to increase process yield and
emulsion stability, and reduce purge compared to high-fat (17% fat)
products and low-fat controls (Kezban & Kolsarici, 2003). Sampaio
et al. (2004) demonstrated that, as a fat replacer in beef frankfurters,
carrageen can decrease total lipids by 70% and cholesterol by 32%
when added to iota- and kappa-carrageenans (0.5%) when added to
low-fat beef with added water (23%). Adding NaCl (1%) increases
cooking yield, hardness, and bind strength. Sausages containing algi-
nate, locust bean gum, and xanthan gum were softer, more deform-
able, crumbly and slippery when compared to controls. Sensory
panel results suggested that carrageenans were the only acceptable
gum for use in beef sausage products (Xiong, Noel, & Moody, 1999).
A mixture of carrageenan, starch, and phosphate added to high-fat
(20%) beef patties decreased cook loss compared to patties containing
beef only (Brewer et al., 1992).
Gels containing salt (2%)-soluble extracts from raw meat, konjac
our, kappa-carageenan and locust bean gum have acceptable visco-
elastic properties at a pH>6.0, 70 C and 1% hydrocolloid (Chin and
Chung, 2002). Gel strength increases the most as the level of kappa-
carrageenan increases.
3.4.2. Alginic acid (sodium alginate)
Alginate is an anionic polysaccharide found in the cell walls of
brown algae. It is a linear copolymer with homopolymeric blocks of
(14)-linked -D-mannuronate (M) and its C-5 epimer -L-glucuronate
Table 3
Selected food ingredients, their functions in food and sources.
Source: Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21, 2005. 21 Pt. 170199. USFDA. Washington, DC.
Ingredient Function Source
Alginate Thickening agents; foam stabilizer Derived from seaweed. Maintains desired texture in manufactured foods.
Carrageenan Thickening and stabilizing agent Derived from seaweed. Thicken uid products and prevent liquid separation.
Casein, sodium caseinate Thickening and whitening agent The principal protein in milk.
Gelatin Thickening and gelling agent Protein extracted from animal bones, hoofs, hides. Forms a thermo-reversible
gel when cooled.
Gums: guar, locust bean, arabic Thickening agents, stabilizers Derived from natural sources (bushes, trees, seaweed). Used to thicken foods,
form gels, encapsulate avor oils, maintain oil/water suspension
Hydrolyzed vegetable protein (HVP) Flavor enhancer Vegetable (usually soybean) protein that has been chemically broken down to
the amino acids. Used to bring out the natural avor of food.
Carboxymethyl-cellulose (CMC) Thickening and stabilizing agent Made by reacting cellulose with an acetic acid derivative. It is a form of ber
that binds water
Starch, modied starch Thickening agent The major component of our, potatoes, and corn. Used as a thickening agent.
Does not dissolve in cold water. May be chemically modied to improve
solubility, stability to freezing and thickening capabilities. Modied starches
improve consistency and keep solids suspended.
Table 4
Characteristics of gums used as fat mimetics.
AgarGel: Carrageenan: Properties and Specications. Accessed November, 2011. www.a-
gargel.com.br/carrageenan-tec.html. FMC BioPolymer Food Ingredients>Ingredients.
Accessed November, 2011. www.fmcbiopolymer.com/Food/Ingredients//Factors.aspx.
Characteristic
pH Solubility Gel Use level
Cold H
2
O Hot H
2
O
Carrageenan
Kappa 3.511 70 C + (with K) 1.5% of H
2
O
Iota 3.511 70 C +(with Ca) 1.5% of H
2
O
Lambda 3.511 40 C 1.5% of H
2
O
Alginate 511 80 C + (Mg, Ca) 0.30.5% of H
2
O
Xanthan 511 80 C 0.5% will gel with
0.5% locust bean
gum, 40 C
Locust bean 5.47 40 C (partial) 82 C + 0.11.0%
0.5% will gel with
0.5% xanthan, 40 C
Guar gum 57 40 C +(with Ca) 0.10.3%
392 M.S. Brewer / Meat Science 91 (2012) 385395
(G), residues, respectively, covalently linked together in different se-
quences or blocks. It is cold water soluble and heat stable. Monovalent
salts (sodium) of alginic acid are soluble in cold water, however diva-
lent salts, except for magnesiumsalts, are not (Table 3). Gelation occurs
in the presence of cations (Mg
2+
bCa
2+
). In the presence of Ca
2+
im-
parts good freezethaw stability. Alginate gels are stable between pH
5 and 11. It can decrease surface tension, absorb 200300 times its
weight in water and form a viscous gum. Use levels in foods are gener-
ally 0.3 to 0.5%. Alginate can be used in the spherication process where
natural juices are encapsulated in bubbles that explode on the tongue
when consumed. Sodium and potassium alginate are used to increase
viscosity, stabilize, and thicken.
Lin (1994) reported that from a sensory standpoint, patties from
coarsely comminuted beef were harder, denser, more easily fractured,
and less juicy than those from aked or aked/ground treatments.
Flavor did not differ. Coarse-ground patties had higher cooking and
reheating losses and higher shear after reheating than aked or
aked/ground treatments. Alginate improved texture slightly more
than carrageenan, but carrageenan tended to release more free
water after cooking and reheating. Low-fat (10%), precooked, ground
beef patties containing alginate/carrageenan combinations had yields
and textural properties superior to regular beef patties (20% fat).
Bullock et al. (1995) found that, of water-binding ingredients added
to low-fat ground beef patties, algin and locust bean gum resulted
in the highest sensory tenderness scores. Overall acceptability scores
were equivalent to those of patties containing a blend of iota and
kappa carrageenans. Similar results have been reported by Kumar,
Sharma, and Kumar (2007) with ground pork.
3.4.3. Xanthan, locust bean and guar gums
Xanthan gum is a non-linear anionic microbial polysaccharide
produced by aerobic fermentation of Xanthamonas campestris. It is a
non-gelling gum that can exist in a rigid, ordered, chain conformation
in solution. It is soluble at 80 C (Table 3). It can form very viscous so-
lutions at low concentrations which are stable to variations in tem-
perature and pH (Ramrez, Barrera, Morales, & Vzquez, 2002).
When hydrated, it becomes rubbery. Xanthan gum can undergo a
thermoreversible order-to-disorder transition at low ionic strengths
(Williams and Phillips, 1995). Although xanthan does not form gels
independently it acts synergistically to form strong thermoreversible
gels when mixed with non-gelling galacto- and gluco-mannan poly-
saccharides extracted from the endosperm of legume seeds (locust
bean, gum, tara gum, guar gum; Casas & Garcia-Ochoa, 1999).
Xanthan gum can gel at any pH when used in combination with kon-
jac gum. At a pH of 5, the two gums show a greatest synergistic effect
and when xanthan gum is used with konjac gum at a ratio of 3:2. Ge-
lation likely occurs as a consequence of polymer chain association.
Xanthan gum (0.5%) and locust bean gum (0.5%) will gel at 40 C.
Locust bean gumis derived fromthe endosperm of the carob bean.
It is used mainly for water binding, thickening and gel strengthening
(Table 3). It is partially soluble in cold water but needs to be heated to
82 C for complete solubility at a pH between 5.4 and 7.0. Typical
usage level is 0.1% to 1.0%. It is also called carob.
Guar gum, produced by the guar plant and stored in the endo-
sperm, is a natural food thickener, similar to locust bean gum, tapioca
our or cornstarch. It is a carbohydrate based vegetable gum that is
8085% soluble dietary ber and swells in cold water (Table 3). It is
highly concentrated with respect to its gel-like properties reducing
the amount required. Guar gum can be cross-linked by calcium caus-
ing it to gel. In water, it is nonionic and hydrocolloidal. It is unaffected
by ionic strength. It is stable in solution over between pH 5 and 7.
Strong acids cause hydrolysis and loss of viscosity, and alkalies in
strong concentration also tend to reduce viscosity. Common use
levels range from 0.1 to 0.3%.
All three, xanthan, locust bean and guar, gums can be used effec-
tively with other gums. Gels containing salt (2%)-soluble extracts
from raw meat, konjac our, kappa-carageenan (1%) and locust
bean gum have acceptable viscoelastic properties at a pH>6.0 after
heating to 70 C (Chin & Chung, 2002). Gel strength increases the
most as the level of kappa-carrageenan increases. Locust bean and
guar gums are used primarily in conjunction with other gums such
as carrageenan and xanthan.
3.4.4. Combinations
Proteinhydrocolloid interactions play an important role in textural
and mechanical properties of foods. Combinations of gums can over-
come individual decits; xanthan and locust bean gums at a ratio of
0.25/0.75 enhance mechanical properties (Ramrez et al., 2002). Adding
a combination of dietary ber, starch and polydextrose to 10% fat
ground beef can produce texture traits similar to 20% ground beef, how-
ever it does not improve juiciness (Troutt et al., 1992b).
Angor and Al-Abdullah (2010) showed that addition of carrageen-
an alone improves crude protein content, juiciness and overall ac-
ceptability of low-fat (b14% fat) beef burger, but it negatively
affects appearance. Adding texturized soy alone increased moisture
binding and protein level, while it lowered avor score compared
with controls. However, the combination of carrageenan, texturized
soy and trisodium phosphate improves all sensory attributes and im-
proves protein contents compared with the control.
Sensory evaluations of coarsely ground treatments suggest that suf-
cient raw and cooked bind can be achieved using kappa carrageenan
(0%, 0.25%, 0.50%), alginate (0.50%), calcium carbonate 0.10%) and glu-
conodeltalactone 0.60%). Addition of 0.50% carrageenan-locust bean
gum and/or 0.75% alginate has been shown to reduce cook loss by 13%
and 17%, respectively (Nielsen, Loegh, & Moller, 1996).
4. Conclusions
Reduced fat meat products have been formulated with a variety of
commercial products including oat bran (Lean Maker), oat maltodextrin
(Oatrim), potato starch maltodextrin (Paselli SA2), potato ber (Potex),
modied corn starch (Stellar), modied tapioca starch (N-Lite), tapioca
dextrin (N-Oil), modied starch (Leanbind), modied tapioca starch
(Tapiocaline), carrageenan (GENU), carrageenan/phosphate (Gelcarin),
carrageenan/dairy protein (Bindex), pectin hydrocolloid (Slendid), and
inulin powder from chicory (Raftiline) (McAuley and Mawson, 1994).
References
Abo-El-Fetoh, S. M., & Abdel-Razik, M. M. (2004). Quality attributes of low-fat beef
sausage containing different dietary bers. Annals of Agricultural Science, 42(2),
643660.
Ahmad, S., Rizawi, J. A., & Srivastava, P. K. (2010). Effect of soy protein isolate incorpo-
ration on quality characteristics and shelf-life of buffalo meat emulsion sausage.
Journal of Food Science and TechnologyMysore, 47(3), 290294.
Ali, F. S., Perry, A. K., & van Duyne, F. O. (1982). Soybeans vs. textured soy protein as
meat extenders. Journal of the American Dietetic Association, 81(4), 439444.
Anderson, E. T., & Berry, B. W. (2000). Sensory, shear, and cooking properties of lower-
fat beef patties made with inner pea ber. Journal of Food Science, 65(5), 805810.
Anderson, E. T., & Berry, B. W. (2001). Effects of inner pea ber on fat retention and
cooking yield in high fat ground beef. Food Research International, 34(8), 689694.
Andic, S., Zorba, O., & Tuncturk, Y. (2010). Effect of whey powder, skim milk powder
and their combination on yield and textural properties of meat patties. International
Journal Agricultural Biology, 1, 871876.
Angor, M. M., & Al-Abdullah, B. M. (2010). Attributes of low-fat beef burgers made from
formulations aired at enhancing product quality. Journal of Muscle Foods, 21(2),
317326.
Barbut, S., & Foegeding, E. A. (1993). Ca-induced gelation of pre-heated whey protein
isolate. Journal of Food Science, 58, 867871.
Berry, B. W. (1997). Sodium alginate plus modied tapioca starch improves properties
of low-fat beef patties. Journal of Food Science, 62(6), 12451249.
Berry, B., & Wergin, W. (1993). Modied pregelatinized potato starch in low-fat ground
beef patties. Journal of Muscle Foods, 4, 305320.
Bigner-George, M. E., & Berry, B. W. (2000). Thawing prior to cooking affects sensory,
shear force, and cooking properties of beef patties. Journal of Food Science, 65(1),
28.
Biswas, A. K., Kumar, V., Bhosle, S., Sahoo, J., & Chatli, M. K. (2011). Dietary bers as
functional ingredients in meat products and their role in human health. Interna-
tional Journal of Livestock Production, 2(4), 4554.
393 M.S. Brewer / Meat Science 91 (2012) 385395
Bond, J. M., Marchello, M. J., & Slanger, W. D. (2001). Physical, chemical, and shelf-life
characteristics of low-fat ground beef patties formulated with waxy hull-less barley.
Journal of Muscle Foods, 12(1), 5369.
Bonkowski, A.T. (1992), Process for making low calorie and low cholesterol muscle
meat. Patent Number: US 5 164 213. Patent Assignee: Archer Daniels Midland
Corp. United States Patent.
Brewer, M. S. (2007). The chemistry of beef avor. An executive summary. Centennial,
CO: National Cattlemen's Beef Association.
Brewer, M. S. (2011). Chemical and physical characteristics of meat: Water holding ca-
pacity. In W. Jensen, C. Devine, & M. Dikemann (Eds.), Encyclopedia of meat science
(pp. 242249). (2nd ed). London: Academic Press, Elsevier Science, Ltd.
Brewer, M. S., & Hatch MD, T. F. (2010). Nutritional value of meat in the diet: A white
paper. Washington, D.C: The American Meat Institute Foundation. http://www.
amif.org/ht/a/GetDocumentAction/i/59998
Brewer, M. S., McKeith, F., & Britt, K. (1992). Fat and soy or carrageenan extender ef-
fects on color, sensory and physical characteristics of ground beef patties. Journal
of Food Science, 57(5), 10511052 (1055).
Brewer, M. S., & Novakofski, J. (1999). Cooking rate, pH and nal endpoint temperature
effects on instrumental and visual color and cook loss of lean ground beef. Meat
Science, 52, 443451.
Brewer, M. S., & Novakofski, J. E. (2008). Consumer quality evaluation of aging of beef.
Journal of Food Science, 73(1), S78S82.
Bullock, K. B., Huffman, D. L., Egbert, W. G., Bradford, D. D., Mikel, W. B., & Jones, W. R.
(1995). Nonmeat ingredients for low-fat ground beef patties. Journal of Muscle
Foods, 6(1), 3746.
Campbell, R. E., Hunt, M. C., Kropf, D. H., & Kastner, C. L. (1996). Low-fat ground beef
from desinewed shanks with reincorporation of processed sinew. Journal of Food
Science, 61(6), 12851288.
Carpenter, Z. L., & King, G. T. (1969). Effects of composition upon ground beef palatabil-
ity. Proceedings of the European Meeting of Meat Research Workers, 15(III), 2122.
Casas, J. A., & Garcia-Ochoa, F. (1999). Viscosity of solutions of xanthan/locust bean
mixtures. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture, 79, 2532.
Cengiz, E., & Gokoglu, N. (2007). Effects of fat reduction and fat replacer addition on
some quality characteristics of frankfurter-type sausages. International Journal of
Food Science and Technology, 42(3), 366372.
Chavez, J., Henrickson, R. L., & Rao, B. R. (1986). Collagen as a hamburger extender.
Journal of Food Quality, 8(4), 265272.
Cheng, J. H., Wang, S. T., & Ockerman, H. W. (2009). Quality of low-fat and low-sodium
salted pork patties with whey protein concentrate. Milk Science International,
64(1), 7477.
Chevance, F. F. V., Farmer, L. J., Desmond, E. M., Novelli, E., Troy, D. J., & Chizzolini, R.
(2000). Effect of some fat replacers on the release of volatile aroma compounds
from low-fat meat products. Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry, 48(8),
34763484.
Chin, K. B., & Chung, B. K. (2002). Development of low-fat meat processing technology
using interactions between meat proteins and hydrocolloids. I. Optimization of in-
teractions between meat proteins and hydrocolloids by model study. Journal of the
Korean Society of Food Science and Nutrition, 31(3), 438444.
Chin, K. B., Go, M. Y., & Xiong, Y. L. (2009). Konjac our improved textural and water
retention properties of transglutaminase-mediated, heat-induced porcine myo-
brillar protein gel: Effect of salt level and transglutaminase incubation. Meat Science,
81(3), 565572.
Chrystall, B. (1994). Meat texture measurement. Advances in Meat Research, 9,
316336.
Code of Federal Regulations, Title 21 (2005). 21 Pt. 170199. Washington, DC: United
States Food and Drug Administration.
Cooper, K., & Michaelides, J. (2004). Fat replacers and extenders. www.gftc.ca/articles/
2004/fat-replacers-extenders.cfm
Crehan, C. M., Hughes, E., Troy, D. J., & Buckley, D. J. (2000). Effects of fat level and
maltodextrin on the functional properties of frankfurters formulated with 5, 12
and 30% fat. Meat Science, 55(4), 463469.
Davis, C. G., & Lin, B. -H. (2005). Factors affecting US beef consumption. Electronic out-
look report from the Economic Research ServiceLDP-M-135-02. : United States De-
partment of Agriculture. www.ers.usda.gov/publications/ldp/Oct05/ldpm13502/
ldpm13502.pdf Accessed May, 2011
Deliza, R., Saldivar, S. O. S., Germani, R., Benassi, V. T., & Cabral, L. C. (2002). The effects
of colored textured soybean protein (TSP) on sensory and physical attributes of
ground beef patties. Journal of Sensory Studies, 17(2), 121132.
Desmond, E. M., Troy, D. J., & Buckley, D. J. (1998a). Effects of tapioca starch, oat bre
and whey protein on the physical and sensory properties of low-fat beef burgers.
Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und Technologie, 31(78), 653657.
Desmond, E. M., Troy, D. J., & Buckley, D. J. (1998b). Comparative studies of nonmeat
adjuncts used in the manufacture of low-fat beef burgers. Journal of Muscle Foods,
9(3), 221241.
Dietary Guidelines (2005). Executive summary. www.health.gov/dietaryguidelines/
dga2005/document/html/executivesummary.htm
Dignam, M. M., Tseng, R. Y., & Smith-Nury, E. (1979). Lipid content and oxidation in soy
protein and ground beef mixture. Home Economics Research Journal, 7(6), 356360.
Egbert, W. R., Huffman, C. L., Chen, C. C., & Dylewski, D. P. (1991). Development of low-
fat ground beef. Food Technology, 45(6), 6473.
Eilert, S. J., Blackmer, D. S., Mandigo, R. W., & Calkins, C. R. (1993). Meat batters manu-
factured with modied beef connective tissue. Journal of Food Science, 58(4),
691696.
Eilert, S. J., Mandigo, R. W., & Sumner, S. S. (1996). Phosphate and modied beef con-
nective tissue effects on reduced-fat, high water-added frankfurters. Journal of
Food Science, 61(5), 10061011.
El-magoli, S. B., Larola, S., & Hansen, P. M. T. (1995). Ultrastructure of low-fat ground beef
patties with added whey protein concentrate. Food Hydrocolloids, 9(4), 291306.
Garzon, G. A., McKeith, F. K., Gooding, J. P., Felker, F. C., Palmquist, D. E., & Brewer, M. S.
(2003). Characteristics of low-fat beef patties formulated with carbohydrate-lipid
composites. Journal of Food Science, 68(6), 20502056.
Graves, L., Delmore, R., Mandigo, R., & Calkins, C. (1994). Utilization of collagen bers in
low-fat ground beef patties. National Agriculture Library. Beef Cattle Report. MP, 61-A.
(pp. 6061).
Guth, H., & Grosch, W. (1993). 12-Methyltridecanal, a species specic odorant of
stewed beef. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft und Technologie, 26, 171177.
Guth, H., & Grosch, W. (1995). Dependence on the 12-methyltridecenal concentration
in beef on the age of the animal. Lebensmittel-Wissenschaft Unters Forschung, 201,
2526.
Hale, A. B., Carpenter, C. E., & Walsh, M. K. (2002). Instrumental and consumer evalua-
tion of beef patties extended with extrusion-textured whey proteins. Journal of
Food Science, 67(3), 12671270.
Hemeida, H. H., El-Naggar, S. M., & El-Magoli, S. B. (2002). Utilization of some fat sub-
stitutes in processing of low fat sausages. Bulletin of Faculty of Agriculture, Cairo
University., 53(4), 595612.
Heywood, A. A., Myers, D. J., Bailey, T. B., & Johnson, L. A. (2002). Effect of value-
enhanced texturized soy protein on the sensory and cooking properties of beef
patties. Journal of the American Oil Chemists Association, 79(7), 703707.
Hill, S. E., & Prusa, K. J. (1989). Physical and sensory properties of lean ground beef pat-
ties containing methylcellulose and hydroxypropylmethylcellulose. Journal of Food
Quality, 11(4), 331337.
Huang, J. C., Zayas, J. F., & Bowers, J. A. (1999). Functional properties of sorghumour as
an extender in grond beef patties. Journal of Food Quality, 22(1), 5161.
Hughes, E., Mullen, A. M., & Troy, D. J. (1998). Effects of fat level, tapioca starch and
whey protein on frankfurters formulated with 5% and 12% fat. Meat Science,
48(12), 169180.
Imadon, G. I., & Spanier, A. M. (1994). Unraveling the secret of meat avor. Trends in
Food Science and Technology, 5, 315321.
Johnson, B. R. (2000). Whey protein concentrates in low-fat applications. Arlington, VA:
US Dairy Export Council.
Kassama, L. S., Ngadi, M. O., & Raghavan, G. S. V. (2003). Structural and instrumental
textural properties of meat patties containing soy protein. International Journal of
Food Properties, 6(3), 519529.
Kassem, M. A. G., & Emara, M. M. T. (2010). Quality and acceptability of value-added
beef burger. World Journal of Dairy Food Science, 5(1), 1420.
Keeton, J. T. (1994). Low-fat meat productsTechnological problems with processing.
Meat Science, 36(12), 261276.
Kenney, P. B., Kastner, C. L., & Kropf, D. H. (1992). Raw and preheated epimysium and
gelatin properties of low-salt, low-fat, restructured beef. Journal of Food Science,
67(3), 551554.
Kezban, C., & Kolsarici, N. (2003). The effects of carrageenan and pectin on some quality
characteristics of low-fat beef frankfurters. Meat Science, 64(2), 199206.
Khalil, A. H. (2000). Quality characteristics of low-fat beef patties formulated with
modied corn starch and water. Food Chemistry, 68(1), 6168.
Kilic, B., Kankaya, T., Ekici, Y. K., & Orhan, H. (2010). Effect of textured soy protein on
quality characteristics of low fat cooked kofte (Turkish meatball). Journal of Animal
and Veterinary Advances, 9(2), 30483054.
Kotula, A. W., & Berry, B. W. (1986). Addition of soy proteins to meat products. Plant
proteins: Applications, biological effects, and chemistry. American Chemical Society
symposium series, 312. (pp. 7489) (Chapter 7).
Kumar, M., Sharma, B. D., & Kumar, R. R. (2007). Evaluation of sodiumalignate as a fat re-
placer on processing and shelf-life of low-fat ground pork patties. AsianAustralasian
Journal of Animal Science, 20(4), 588597.
Lee, H. C., & Chin, K. B. (2010). Application of microbial transglutaminase and functional
ingredients for the healthier low-fat/salt meat products: A review. Korean Journal
for Food Science of Animal Resources, 30(6), 886895.
Lin, K. W. (1994). Investigation of fat replacement systems for low-fat, precooked, coarse-
ground beef products. Dissertation Abstracts International, B, 54(8), 39203921.
Lin, K. W., & Keeton, J. T. (1998). Textural and physicochemical properties of low-fat,
precooked ground beef patties containing carrageenan and sodium alginate. Jour-
nal of Food Science, 63(4), 571574.
Liu, M. N., & Berry, B. W. (1998). Patty formation method, thickness and weight effects
on properties of cooked low-fat beef patties. Journal of Muscle Foods, 9(3), 243256.
Liu, H., Xiong, Y. L., Jiang, L., & Kong, B. (2008). Fat reduction in emulsion sausage using
an enzyme-modied potato starch. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture,
88(9), 16321637.
Lui, M. N., Huffman, D. L., Egbert, W. R., McCaskey, T. A., & Liu, C. W. (1991). Soy protein
and oil effects on chemical, physical and microbial stability of lean ground beef
patties. Journal of Food Science, 56(4), 906912.
Lyons, P. H., Kerry, J. F., Morrissey, P. A., & Buckley, D. J. (1998). The inuence of whey
protein/carrageenan gels and tapioca starch on the textural properties of low fat
sausages. Meat Science, 51, 4352.
MacLeod, G. (1998). The avour of beef. In F. Shahidi (Ed.), Flavor of meat, meat prod-
ucts, and seafoods (pp. 2760). London: Blackie Academic and Professional.
Mallika, E. N., Prabhakar, K., & Reddy, P. M. (2009). Low fat meat products An over-
view. Veterinary World, 2(9), 364366.
Mansour, E. H., & Khalil, A. H. (1999). Characteristics of low-fat beef burgers as inu-
enced by various types of wheat bres. Journal of the Science of Food and Agricul-
ture, 79(4), 493498.
Mathews, K. H., Jr., & McConnell, M. (2010). U.S. beef and cattle industry: Background
statistics and information. USDA, Economic Research Service Retrieved November,
2010 from. http://www.ers.usda.gove/news/BSECoverage.htm
394 M.S. Brewer / Meat Science 91 (2012) 385395
Matsuishi, M., Igeta, M., Takeda, S., & Okitani, A. (2006). Sensory factors contributing to the
identication of the animal species of meat. Journal of Food Science, 69(6), S218S221.
McAuley, C., & Mawson, R. (1994). Low-fat and low-salt meat product ingredients. Food
Australia, 46(6), 283286.
McMindes, M. K. (1991). Applications of isolated soy protein in low-fat meat products.
Food Technology, 45(12), 6164.
Mittal, G., & Barbut, S. (1994). Effects of carrageenans and xanthan gum on the texture
and acceptability of low fat frankfurters. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation,
18, 201216.
Morin, L. A., Temelli, F., & McMullen, L. (2004). Interactions between meat proteins and
barley (Hordeum spp.) beta-glucan within a reduced-fat breakfast sausage system.
Meat Science, 68(3), 419430.
Mottram, D. S. (1998). The chemistry of meat avour. In F. Shahidi (Ed.), Flavor of meat,
meat products, and seafoods (pp. 526). London: Blackie Academic and Professional.
Muller, G. G., & Redden, V. R. (1995). Sensory and functional evaluation of ground beef
patties extended with milling grade culinary beans. Proceedings of the Joint Australia
and New Zealand Institute of Food Science and Technology Conference, 52.
Nielsen, H. T., Loegh, L., & Moller, A. J. (1996). Effect of a kappa-carrageenan/locust bean
gum mixture on bind and cooking loss in high mannuronate alginate restructured
beef. Journal of Muscle Foods, 7(4), 413424.
Nisar, P. U. M., Chatli, M. K., & Sharma, D. K. (2009). Efcacy of tapioca starch as a fat
replacer in low-fat buffalo meat patties. Buffalo Bulletin, 28(1), 1822.
Offer, G., & Knight, P. (1988). The structural basis of water-holding in meat. In R. A.
Lawrie (Ed.), Developments in meat science (pp. 63). (4th edition). London: Elsevier
Applied Science.
Patanawongyuneyong, S. (2002). Process of incorporating konjac paste into a meat to
provide a low calorie meat product. Patent Number: US 6 352 735 B1. Patent
Assignee: Sahachol Food Supplies Co. Ltd. United States Patent.
Pea-Ramosa, A. E., & Xiong, Y. L. (2003). Whey and soy protein hydrolysates inhibit
lipid oxidation in cooked pork patties. Meat Science, 64(3), 259263.
Pinero, M. P., Parra, K., Huerta-Leidenz, N., de Moreno, L. A., Ferrer, M., Araujo, S., et al.
(2008). Effect of oat's soluble bre (beta-glucan) as a fat replacer on physical,
chemical, microbiological and sensory properties of low-fat beef patties. Meat Science,
80(3), 675680.
Ramrez, J. A., Barrera, M., Morales, O. G., & Vzquez, M. (2002). Effect of xanthan and lo-
cust bean gums on the gelling properties of myobrillar protein. Food Hydrocolloids,
16(1), 1116.
Rao, B. R., & Henrickson, R. L. (1986). Effect of hide collagen on the amino acid compo-
sition of beef patties and pork sausage. Journal of Food Quality, 8(4), 247252.
Rentfrow, G., Weingartner, K., Carr, T., McKeith, F., & Brewer, M. S. (2004). The use of
non-solvent extracted soy protein in ground beef, fresh and smoked pork sausage,
and frankfurters. Journal of Muscle Foods, 15(4), 225234.
Ressurreccion, A. (2003). Sensory aspects of consumer choices for meat and red meat
choices. Meat Science, 66, 1120.
Rhee, K. S., & Smith, G. C. (1983). Title Effect of cooking on cholesterol content of patties
containing different amounts of beef, textured soy protein and fat. Journal of Food
Science, 48(1), 268269.
Robbins, K., Jensen, J., Ryan, K. J., Homco-Ryan, C., McKeith, F. K., & Brewer, M. S. (2003).
Consumer attitudes towards beef and acceptability of enhanced beef. Meat Science,
65(2), 721729.
Rocha-Garza, A. E., & Zayas, J. F. (1995). Effect of wheat germ protein our on the qual-
ity characteristics of beef patties cooked on a griddle. Journal of Food Processing and
Preservervation, 19(5), 341360.
Roth, D. M., McKeith, F. K., & Brewer, M. S. (1999). Processing parameter effects on sen-
sory and instrumental characteristics of reduced-fat ground beef patties. Journal of
Muscle Foods, 10(2), 163176.
Rowe, D. (2002). High impact aroma chemicals part 2: The good, the bad, and the ugly.
Perfumer and Flavorist, 27, 2429.
Salwa, B., Laroia, S., & Hansen, P. M. T. (1996). Flavor and texture characteristics of low
fat ground beef patties formulated with whey protein concentrate. Meat Science,
42(2), 179193.
Sampaio, G. R., Castellucci, C. M. N., Pinto e Silva, M. E. M., & Torres, E. A. F. S. (2004).
Effect of fat replacers on the nutritive value and acceptability of beef frankfurters.
Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 17(34), 469474.
Schultz, G. W., Russell, D. R., & Wierbicki, E. (1972). Effect of condensed phosphates on pH,
swelling and water-holding capacity on beef. Journal of Food Science, 37, 860866.
Serdarolu, M. (2006). Improving low fat meatball characteristics by adding whey
powder. Meat Science, 72(1), 155163.
Serdaroglu, M., Yildiz-Turp, G., & Abrodimov, K. (2005). Quality of low-fat meatballs
containing legume ours as extenders. Meat Science, 70(1), 99105.
Shand, P. (1997). Mimetic and synthetic fat replacers for the meat industry. Production
and processing of healthy meat, poultry and sh products. Advances in meat research,
11. (pp. 191209) Ch. 9.
Shaner, K. M., & Baldwin, R. E. (1979). Sensory properties, proximate analysis and cook-
ing losses of meat loaves extended with chickpea meal or textured soy protein.
Journal of Food Science, 44(4), 11911193.
Shewry, P. R., & Tatham, A. S. (2000). Wheat gluten. Special publication. Royal Society of
Chemistry, 261, 500548.
Shih, F. F., & Daigle, K. W. (2003). Antioxidant properties of milled-rice co-products and
their effects on lipid oxidation in ground beef. Journal of Food Science, 68(9),
26722675.
Siegel, D. G., & Schmidt, G. R. (1979). Ionic, pH, and temperature effects on the binding
ability of myosin. Journal of Food Science, 44, 16861691.
Szerman, N., Gonzalez, C. B., Sancho, A. M., Grigioni, G., Carduza, F., & Vaudagna, S. R.
(2007). Effect of whey protein concentrate and sodium chloride addition plus tum-
bling procedures on technological parameters, physical properties and visual appear-
ance of sous vide cooked beef. Meat Science, 76(3), 463473.
Taki, G. H. (1991). Functional ingredient blend produces low-fat meat products to meat
consumer expectations. Food Technology, 45(11), 7072 (74).
Tatirat, O., & Charoenrein, S. (2011). Physicochemical properties of konjac glucoman-
nan extracted from konjac our by a simple centrifugation process. LWT Food
Science and Technology, 44(10), 20592063.
Tomasik, P. (2004). Chemical and functional properties of food saccharides. Chemical
and functional properties of food components, 5. (pp. 93150)Boca Ratone, FL: CRC
Press.
Tran, T., Piyachomkwan, K., & Sriroth, K. (2007). Gelatinization and thermal properties of
modied cassava starches. Cassava and Starch Technology Research UnitNational
Center for Genetic Engineering and Biotechnology (BIOTEC). Jatujak, Bangkok, Thailand:
Kasetsart University.
Trius, A., Sebranek, J. G., & Lanier, T. (1996). Carrageenans and their use in meat products.
Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 36(12), 6985.
Troutt, E. S., Hunt, M. C., Johnson, D. E., Claus, J. R., & Kastner, C. L. (1992a). Character-
istics of low-fat ground-beef containing texture-modifying ingredients. Journal of
Food Science, 57(1), 1924.
Troutt, E. S., Hunt, M. C., Johnson, D. E., Claus, J. R., Kastner, C. L., Kropf, D. H., et al.
(1992b). Chemical, physical, and sensory characterization ground-beef containing
5-percent to 30-percent fat. Journal of Food Science, 57(1), 2529.
Troy, D. J., Desmond, E. M., & Buckley, D. J. (1999). Eating quality of lowfat beef burgers
containing fat replacing functional blends. Journal of the Science of Foodand Agriculture,
79, 507516.
USDA Nutrient Data Base (2011). http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/search/
index.html Accessed October, 2011
USDA/Economic Research Service (2002). Changing consumer demands create oppor-
tunities for U.S. food system. Food Review, 25(1), 1922.
Velioglu, H. M., Velioglu, S. D., Boyaci, I. H., Yilmaz, I., & Kurultay, S. (2010). Investigat-
ing the effects of ingredient levels on physical quality properties of cooked ham-
burger patties using response surface methodology and image processing
technology. Meat Science, 84(3), 477483.
Walsh, H., Martins, S., O'Neill, E. E., Kerry, J. P., Kenny, T., & Ward, P. (2010). The effect of
sodium lactate, potassium lactate, carrageenan, whey protein concentrate, yeast
extract and fungal proteinases on the cook yield and tenderness of bovine chuck
muscles. Meat Science, 85(2), 230234.
Wang, S. T., Fligner, K., &Mangino, M. E. (2006). Formulation of a palatable low-fat sausage
using whey protein concentrate. Milk Science International, 61(1), 7983.
Warner, K., Eskins, K., Fanta, G. F., Nelsen, T. C., & Rocke, J. W. (2001). Use of starch
lipid composites in low fat ground beef products. Food Technology, 55(2), 3641.
Warner, K., & Inglett, G. E. (1997). Flavor and texture characteristics of foods containing
Z-trim corn and oat bers as fat and our replacers. Cereal Foods World, 42(10),
821825.
Williams, P. S. A., & Philips, G. O. (1995). Interactions in mixed polysaccharide systems.
In A. M. Stevens (Ed.), Food Polysacharides and Their Applications (p. 463). New
York: Marcel Dekker, Inc., Publishers.
Wu, S. Y., & Brewer, M. S. (1994). Soy protein isolate antioxidant effect on lipid perox-
idation of ground beef and microsomal lipids. Journal of Food Science, 59(4), 16.
Xiong, Y. L., Noel, D. C., & Moody, W. G. (1999). Textural and sensory properties of low-
fat beef sausages with added water and polysaccharides as affected by pH and salt.
Journal of Food Science, 64(3), 550554.
Youssef, M. K., & Barbut, S. (2010). Physiochemical effects of the nature of the lipid
phase and protein level on meat emulsion stability, texture and microstructure.
Journal of Food Science, 75(2), 108114.
Youssef, M. K., &Barbut, S. (2011). Fat reduction incomminuted meat productsEffects of
beef fat, regular and pre-emulsied canola oil. Meat Science, 87(4), 356360.
Zhu, L., Robbins, K. L., Cadwallader, K. R., & Brewer, M. S. (2001). Effects of soy protein
isolate on headspace aroma components of cooked ground beef patties. IFT annual
meeting. New Orleans, LA. Abstract 88A-18.
Ziprin, Y. A., Rhee, K. S., Carpenter, Z. L., Hostetler, R. L., Terrell, R. N., & Rhee, K. C.
(1981). Glandless cottonseed, peanut and soy protein ingredients in ground beef
patties: Effect on rancidity and other quality factors. Journal of Food Science,
46(1), 5861.
395 M.S. Brewer / Meat Science 91 (2012) 385395