PROCESSED MEATS

Technology for Low-Fat Ground Beef Dale L. Huffman* W. Russell Egbert Chiao-min Chen Daniel P. Dylewski

Introduction found that consumers were responding positively to leaner beef cuts with the perception that these cuts were more The nutritional quality of the food supply has emerged as healthy. Similar findings were reported from a National Con- a major concern of today's consumers. Many consumers are sumer Retail Beef Study, where it was reported that con- currently limiting the amount of fat and calories in their diet. sumers perceived closely trimmed (0.3 in external fat) or As consumers reduce the fat and caloric content of their completely trimmed beef cuts as being lower in fat and diets, they select food products that are perceived as being cholesterol than cuts with 0.5 in of external fat (Cross et al., lower in fat. These attitudes are also reflected in their meat 1980). The National Restaurant Association also conducted purchasing decisions. As consumers become more health a consumer attitude and behavior study in 1986. The study conscious, it is important that the red meat industry tailor indicated that at least half of those interviewed were making meat products to meet the needs of this ever-growing seg- a conscious effort to restrict their consumption of fat and ment of the population. cholesterol (NRA, 1986). The need for fat reduction in the diet has been further emphasized by the recommendations Ground Beef Consumption of the American Cancer Society (ACS, 1984), and American Over seven billion pounds of ground beef products are Heart Association (AHA, 1986) to restrict calories from fat to consumed annually in the United States. In 1989, this ac- less than 30% of total caloric intake. counted for 44% of the total fresh beef consumption (AMI, 1990). These products generally contain between 20% and Reasons for Low-Fat Ground Beef 30% fat. The distribution of this seven billion pounds between In response to increasing consumer concerns about food service and in-home use is unclear, since at present health and nutrition, the food service industry has made there is no official tracking system. Estimates for beef con- several changes in their menus and/or methods of prepara- sumption in the food service industry range from as low as tion. Fast-food chains have introduced such entrees as sal- 35% to over 50% of total beef consumption. It is clear, ads, low-fat shakes, cold cereal and bran muffins to their however, that ground beef continues to command a major menus. The fried chicken industry is also currently testing share of total beef consumption. improved methods for preparing reduced-fat fried chicken products. Similar changes have occurred in the retail market- Consumer Attitudes about Fat ing of beef products with closer trimming of retail cuts and the Food consumption patterns have dramatically changed in availability of leaner ground beef products. the last two decades. Trends indicate a shift in the consump- Ground beef continues to account for a significant amount tion of fats, with a decrease in visible, separable fat con- of the total beef consumed in restaurants and the home. It sumption, and an increase in the intake of low-fat animal was estimated for the time period of February 1988 to March products such as low-fat milk and fish (NRC, 1988). Over 1989 that ground beef accounted for 77% of beef consump- two-thirds of consumers surveyed in 1985 had some con- tion in restaurants and 58% of beef consumption in the home cerns about health, with one of their major concerns being (NPD, 1989). As stated earlier, these products generally the amount of fat in their diets (Yankelovich, 1985). In a 1987 contain between 20% and 30% fat. As today's consumers survey, a majority of consumers indicated that they were continue to become more health conscious, their demand for limiting the amount of fat, calories and cholesterol in their lower-fat ground beef products will expand. It is essential that diets (Burke Marketing Research, 1987). This survey also the red meat industry develop low-fat ground beef products tailored to meet the needs of these diet-conscious consumers. *D.L. Huffman, Department of Animal and Dairy Why Not Simple Fat Reduction? Sciences, Auburn University, AL 36849 The simple reduction of fat would be the most efficient Reciprocal Meat Conference Proceedings, Volume method of producing low-fat ground beef products. However, 44, 1991. the palatability of ground beef is directly related to fat content.

73 74 American Meat Science Association

Huffman and Egbert (1990) found that the overall acceptabil- food additives. Several studies were conducted to evaluate ity, based on consumer sensory panel tests, of ground beef the effect of various flavor-related additives (e.g. black, white products peaked at a fat content of approximately 20% (Fig. and red peppers, monosodium glutamate, onion and garlic 1). They also found that overall acceptability was highly powder) on the enhancement of beef flavor intensity in low- correlated (r = 0.69; P<0.05) to beef flavor intensity. This fat ground beef. Results indicated that use of a 2:l ratio of research confirms that of Berry and Leddy (1984) in which it salt to hydrolyzed vegetable protein (HVP) at concentrations was found that 19% fat ground beef had greater beef flavor of 0.25% and 0.125%, respectively produced a beef flavor intensity than 14% fat ground beef. They also found a decline intensity similar to the 20% fat control product. in flavor intensity in ground beef with higher fat content (24% With the appropriate flavor modification in place, efforts fat). Several researchers have also shown that as fat content were concentrated on improvements in the juiciness and of ground beef decreases, there is a significant decrease in tenderness of the product (Huffman and Egbert, 1990). It product juiciness and tenderness (Kendall et al., 1974; Cross was felt that juiciness and possibly tenderness could be et al., 1980; Berry and Leddy, 1984; Kregel et al., 1986). It is improved through the retention of moisture within the prod- evident from the above studies that production of low-fat uct. The food gum carrageenan was selected for moisture ground beef products through simple fat reduction would retention purposes on the basis of its ability to form a result in a substantial decrease in product palatability, flavor complex with water and protein. Various blends and concen- intensity, juiciness and tenderness. trations of carrageenan were evaluated in the low-fat ground beef product. Juiciness and tenderness scores similar to those of the 20% fat control were achieved through the Developmen t Process addition of 0.5% of an iota carrageenan and 10% water to the The emphasis of research at Auburn University in the low-fat product. With greater moisture retention, it was nec- development of the low-fat (

Compositional, Physical, Ultrastructural and 5.00 Sensory Properties of Developed Low-Fat Ground Beef The following will detail the sensory, compositional, phys- 4.5 0 ical and ultrastructural properties of the developed low-fat 5 10 15 20 25 ground beef product (AU Lean) in comparison to 20% and 8% fat all-beef products in pattie form. The developed prod- uct is an 8% fat beef pattie with 10% added water, 0.5% Fat content (%I carrageenan (Viscarin SD 389, FMC Corp. Philadelphia, PA), Overall acceptability of ground beef patties based on fat content as 0.4% encapsulated salt (Van den Bergh Food Ingredients evaluated by consumer panelists on a 10-cm descriptive scale Group, Lisle, IL) and 0.2% hydrolyzed vegetable protein (IO = like extremely, 0 =dislike extremely). (A.C. Legg Packing Co., Birmingham, AL). 44th Reciprocal Meat Conference 75

Sensory Properties Table 2. Compositional Properties of Beef Patties. The major objective in our development of low-fat (ground meat products, was promi- a SEM = Standard error of the mean. nent for 8% fat all-beef patties. Sensory panelists found Means within a row with different superscripts differ (P<0.05). these patties to be more (P<0.05) mealy than 20% fat and AU lean patties with AU lean patties rated lowest (P<0.05) in detectable mealiness. Less (P<0.05) connective tissue was detected by sensory panelists in AU Lean patties than all- tein content than 8% fat all-beef patties. Similar differences beef patties. Improvements in the amount of detectable were also found in the cooked products with AU Lean patties mealiness and connective tissue were probably also related containing less (P<0.05) fat and protein, and more (P<0.05) to addition of carrageenan and water. A final sensory trait moisture than 8% all-beef patties (Table 2). Cooked AU lean which is highly correlated (Huffman and Egbert, 1990) to patties had a similar (P>0.05) protein content to 20% fat consumer overall acceptability is flavor intensity. Sensory patties, due primarily to the retention of added moisture. panelists rated AU Lean patties higher (P<0.05) in beef Cholesterol content of cooked patties was also evaluated flavor intensity than the 20% fat or 8% fat all-beef patties. Salt (Table 2). AU Lean patties were found to have a lower and HVP addition was responsible for the enhanced beef (PcO.05) cholesterol content than 8% or 20% fat all-beef flavor intensity in the AU Lean product. patties. Again, this was probably, in part, the result of addition of water to the product and resultant diluted cholesterol Compositional and Physical Properties levels. Calories. Distribution of calories from fat and protein in Moisture, fat, protein and cholesterol. Low-fat patties the cooked patties is illustrated in Fig. 2. AU lean patties had were manufactured using the same raw material sources, a lower (P<0.05) caloric content than 8% or 20% fat all-beef therefore compositional differences in the low-fat patties patties. Twenty percent fat beef patties had the greatest were the result of the non-meat used in the developed (P<0.05) caloric content with calories from fat accounting for product (Table 2). Raw AU Lean patties had a higher (P<0.05) moisture content and lower (P<0.05) fat and pro-

Table 1. Sensory and Physical Properties of Figure 2 Cooked Beef Patties. Protein 36% ein 55% Treatment Trait a 20% fat 8% fat AU Lean SEMb Juiciness 5.8d 4.Se 6.7c 0.12 Tenderness 5.6d 5.p 6.6c 0.22 Fat 45% Connective tissue 6.8d 6.8d 7.3c 0.06 Fat 6 Mealiness 6.5d 6.1e 6.gC 0.05 8% Fat Beef flavor 20% Fat (196 Kcal) intensity 5.2d 4.6d 6.4c 0.16 (272 Kcal) Shear force (kglg sample) 3.5e 4.4c 4.0d 0.06 a Juiciness, tenderness, connective tissue, mealiness and beef flavor intensity rated on a 8-point scale where 1 = extremely dry, extremely tough, abundant, abundant, extremely bland and 8 = extremely juicy, extremely tender, none, none, and extremely intense, respectively. SEM = Standard error of the mean. Distribution of calories from fat and protein in cooked ground beef cde Means within a row with different superscripts differ (P<0.05). patties (Kcalil00 gm). 76 American Meat Science Association

64% of total caloric content compared to AU lean patties with droplet size through the apparent fusion of closely positioned 43% total calories from fat. droplets. Lipid pools, some as large as 110 pm in diameter, Cooking losses. Moisture, fat and protein losses from were observed in all cooked samples but in greatest number cooking are illustrated in Fig. 3. Low-fat patties (AU Lean and in the 20% fat beef patties (Fig. 4b). 8% fat) had lower (P0.05) in moisture and protein loss appressed to one another after cooking (Fig. 4d). In some among the three products. However, fat losses were greatest samples, this close association of bundles resulted in what (P<0.05) in 20% fat patties might be termed a “protein continuum.” Kramer shear force. Kramer shear force values of sam- Particles of carrageenan were polymorphic, averaged 75 ples equilibrated to room temperature were poorly correlated p.m in diameter, and were homogeneously distributed in the to sensory panel tenderness scores. Twenty percent fat beef developed product (Fig. 4e & 41). The size and shape of the patties had the lowest (P<0.05) shear force value (Table 1) particles remained unchanged after cooking. These particles of the three formulations. This is in contrast to sensory were similar in size and shape to the lipid droplets observed tenderness scores where AU Lean patties were rated as in uncooked 20% and 8% fat patties. At the ultrastructural most (P<0.05) tender. These differences are probably due in level, the particles had the morphological appearance of a part to the temperature difference between the tests. Sam- gel or network. In the uncooked samples, the gel appeared ples for sensory evaluation were held at -40°C prior to panel more homogeneous than in cooked samples, but in both evaluation, whereas shear force measurements were made samples it is assumed that because the particles were ex- at -20°C. This would indicate that serving temperature is posed to an aqueous environment that they are either par- much more critical with low-fat beef patties than patties with tially or totally hydrated. higher fat content. Shear force values for AU Lean patties, The functionality of the carrageenan within the system however, were still lower (PcO.05) than 8% fat beef patties. remains unclear; however, the following two points can be Shear force differences between low-fat patties are again made based on morphological observations: 1) Given the probably the result of addition of the carrageenan and water similarity in size and shape of carrageenan particles in the combination to AU Lean patties. No differences (P<0.05) developed product, with lipid droplets in the 20% and 8% fat were found among beef pattie treatments for tensile strength. products, it could be argued that the organoleptic perception of the hydrated carrageenan might be similar to that of lipid Morphological Features droplets, and in that sense function as a replacement; 2) The The lipid droplets in uncooked samples were polymorphic, 4 averaged 45 km in diameter, and were homogeneously Figure distributed among bundles of skeletal muscle and connective tissue (Fig. 4). Cooking resulted in the enlargement of lipid

Figure 3 32 0Moisture 8 30 Fat -Q) Protein E“m 28 to 0 26 0 b 0 r 24 \ m 22

20 20% Fat 8% Fat AU Lean Light microscopy of ground beef products: a) 20% fat all-beef pattie, uncooked; b) 20% fat all-beef pattie, cooked; c) 8% fat all-beef pattie, Moisture, fat and protein losses during cooking. Bars or shaded uncooked; d) 8% fat all-beef pattie, cooked; e) developed low-fat areas with different letters are different (P<0.05).Standard errors of (-8% fat) pattie. uncooked; f) developed low-fat pattie, cooked. the mean for total cooking loss=O.63, moisture loss = 1.53, fat Abbreviations: lipid (L), muscle (M), connective tissue (ct), loss = 0.27 and protein loss = 0.10. carrageenan (C). 44th Reciprocal Meat Conference 77

carrageenan particles had the ultrastructural morphology of through the use of a combination of iota carrageenan and fully hydrated gels after cooking. These gels probably help added water. However, the use of this technology must be retain moisture within the system. restricted to improvements in organoleptic properties of low- fat fresh meat products. Abuse of the technology to simply lower cost would be detrimental to product quality as well as consumer attitudes concerning the products. Implications for the Food Industry The health consciousness of the US. consumer will re- main a catalyst for the continued development of more healthful foods by the food industry. The developed low-fat ACTNOWLEDGEMENTS ground beef discussed in this paper is in response to chang- This study was funded, in part, by grants from the National ing consumer attitudes. The cooked low-fat product, on an Live Stock and Meat Board Beef Industry Council, 444 North equivalent serving-size basis, has 58% less fat and 37% Michigan Avenue, Chicago, IL as well as the Alabama Cattle- fewer calories than 20% fat ground beef. These reductions mens Association, 600 Adams Avenue, Montgomery, AL are achieved while maintaining the organoleptic properties of 36197. We acknowledge and thank the Marine Colloids the low-fat product. This technology of using iota Division of FMC Corp., Philadelphia, PAfor their support. We carrageenan, water and flavor enhancers to produce a high also thank Van den Bergh Food Ingredient Group, Lisle, IL quality low-fat ground beef product should be expanded to and A.C. Legg Packing Co., Birmingham, AL for their contri- include other fresh meat products. Many of the negative butions. We thank John Morrell and Co., Montgomery, AL for attributes of low-fat fresh meat products may be eliminated their cooperation.

References

ACS. 1984. Nutrition and cancer, cause and prevention. An Ameri- Huffman, D.L.; Egbert, W.R. 1990. Advances in lean ground beef can Cancer Society special report. ca-A Cancer Journal for production. Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station Bull., No. Clinicians 34 (2):121 606, Auburn University, AL. AHA. 1986. Dietary guidelines for healthy adult Americans. Ameri- Kendall, P.A.; Harrison, D.L.; Dayton, A.D. 1974. Quality attributes of can Heart Association Circulation 74:1465A. ground beef on the retail market. J. Food Sci. 39:610. AMI. 1990. Meat facts; ’90. Education and Member Services Depart- Kregel, K.K.; Prusa, K.J.; Hughes, K.V. 1986. Cholesterol content ment. American Meal Institute, Washington, D.C. and sensory analysis of ground beef as influenced by fat level, Berry, B.W.; Leddy, K.F. 1984. Effects of fat level and cooking heating and storage. J. Food Sci. 51 :1162. method on sensory and textural properties of ground beef patties. NRA. 1986. 1987 National Restaurant Association Food Service J. Food Sci. 49:870. Industry Forecast. National Restaurant Association, Washington, Burke Marketing Research. 1987. The Consumer Climate for Meat D.C. Study. Prepared for the National Live Stock and Meat Board, NRC. National Research Council. 1988. Current trends in the con- Chicago, IL, and the American Meat Institute, Washington, D.C. sumption of animal products. In “Designing Foods: Animal Prod- Cross, H.R.; Berry, B.W.; Wells, L.H. 1980. Effects of fat level and uct Options in the Marketplace.” pp 18-44. National Academy source on the chemical, sensory and cooking properties of Press, Washington, D.C. ground beef patties. J. Food Sci. 45:791. Yankelovich. 1985. The Consumer Climate for Meat Products. Pre- Folch, J.; Lees, M.; Stanley, G. H. S. 1957. A simple method for the pared for the American Meat Institute, Washington, D.C., and isolation and purification of total lipids from animal tissues. J. Biol. National Live Stock and Meat Board, Chicago, IL. New York: Chem. 226:497. Yankelovich, Skelly and White, Inc.

Discussion

G. Schmidt: So far as where the lean beef will come from, Schmidt: I agree. do you see a future for the Eldon Roth method which is Huffman: Yes, and Dr. Dannison is here, Director of essentially low-temperature rendered, and, as far as I under- Quality Control for IBP. I think he would probably agree as stand, it can now be called on the label “fat-reduced beef?” well. It took a long time to get label approval for this product. I Do you think this, working with beef and pork, will supply a think to use the term “rendering” on there is probably incor- significant portion of the lean beef and pork? rect. I don’t think it’s a rendered product; it’s separated, it’s D. Huffman: I don’t know about it. Of course, obviously not mechanically separated; we’ve got to do some things like Glenn, I don’t know the answer to your question. Let me just that. We’ve got to better utilize the raw material that we have. say that this technology, for those of you that are not familiar Yes, I think it’s great. with it, is a new approach to separating lean and fat. The H. Hedrick: Would you mind elaborating on.the labeling of company that Glenn alluded to, BPI, has a contract with IBP, this product, say, at the retail level where you have ground and some facilities close by. I’ve visited them, just as an beef with other ingredients? outsider looking in. I think that’s the greatest technology Huffman: Harold, if I understood your question correctly, break-through I’ve seen in a long time. Do you agree? labeling at retail as opposed to the fast-food or “Disney”? American Meat Science Association

Hedrick: That’s correct. For example, in the case of water and carrageenan” had to be the same size as “low fat MacDonald’s, they don’t call it a hamburger, they call it ground beef.” If they did this for all meat products, you’d have “McLean.“ a big piece of paper to do your advertising in. This is “sacred Huffman: That’s correct, they call it the “McLean Deluxe.” cow.” It’s really a paradox that you can’t do with low fat At Disney, it can be called the “Pluto Burger” or you know, a ground beef, even though as Jim pointed out, it is a “Space Burger,” or any of those fanciful names. I’m sure processed meat product. You have a whole different ball there are several people in the room who are better equipped game with ground beef than you have with other products. to speak to this than I am, but suffice it to say, when you have K. Dunlavy: Have you noticed a large palatability problem a label at retail, and particularly if you make a claim that it’s with lean hamburger when it’s allowed to cool? “lite,” then you have to provide nutritional information. It’s a Huffman: There should not be if the product is properly totally different ball game than simply having that box label. cooked. Obviously you don’t have the fat, you’ve got more And this was new ground that we were plowing at USDA in moisture, your cooking time is quite different. After it cools, it getting label approval. On that nutritional label, you’ve got to may be like any other-you don’t get any fat sticking on your have moisture, fat, protein, saturated fat, calories, serving mouth-but sure, after it cools, it is probably going to be less size for a 4-ounce patty or 100 grams cooked weight. palatable than it was when it was warm. Hedrick: Do you call it a hamburger, or what do you call it? P Lewis: Approximately what‘s your cooking loss that you Huffman: It cannot be called a hamburger. It can be called observe in these low-fat burgers? low-fat ground beef with a solution of, in this case, Huffman: Cooking loss, Russ, you may have to help me- carrageenan or if it were oat bran, or whatever, but with a 25%. You don’t lose any fat, Paul, there’s none there. solution of water and carrageenan and whatever else might Lewis: Are you starting out with an 8% fat raw, or 8% fat be in the product. The size of the major component is set by cooked? whatever will fit on your package but the claim then must be Huffman: The AU Lean that we addressed has 8% fat in one-third the size. There’s been a lot of concern in the the meat block, added moisture of approximately 9%, 0.5% various stales about this. In California, for example, they carrageenan, 0.5% other additives, for a total meat block of found that the Federal label usurped the state, so the state around 110 pounds. came back with a mandate that in all advertising, the “with