. Article No. fs980415 Lebensm.-Wiss. u.-Technol.

, 31, 653657 1998

The Effects of Tapioca Starch, Oat Fibre and
Whey Protein on the Physical and Sensory
Properties of Low-fat Beef Burgers
E. M. Desmond, D. J . Troy* andD. J . Buckley
E. M. Desmond, D. J. Troy: Teagasc, The National Food Centre, Dunsinea, Castleknock, Dublin 15
.
I reland
.
D. J. Buckley: Department of Food Technology, University College, Cork I reland
( )
Receied December 5, 1997; acccepted July 7, 1998
The optimising of the composition of ingredients has a major effect on the properties of low-fat products. The purpose of this research
( ) ( ) was to assess the effects of added tapioca starch ranging from 030 g r kg , oat fibre ranging from 020 g r kg and whey protein
( ) ranging from 020 g r kg on the physical and organoleptic characteristics of low-fat beef burgers. Response surface methodology
( ) RSM was used to study the simultaneous effects of these three ingredients. Significant models of regression were ascertained for
( ) cooking properties yield and water holding capacity , the sensory attributes of tenderness and juiciness, and all mechanical texture
( ) attributes. The leel of tapioca starch TS influenced the models to the greatest extent. Its effect on the cooking properties was highly
significant, positie and linear. The presence of TS had a large negatie linear effect on Warner-Bratzler and Kramer shear forces. For
each significant regression model, TS exerted a linear effect, and in some cases a quadratic effect. Both oat fibre and whey protein had
a limited influence. There was no eidence of interactions among the ariables. The results indicate that as the TS in low-fat beef
burgers increases a succulent and tender low-fat product is obtained.
1998 Academic Press
Keywords: low-fat; ground beef; fat substitutes; response surface methodology
Introduction
Research into low-fat meat products is primarily due to
consumers concerns about health and nutrition, and
the food service industry has made several changes in
.
menus andror methods of preparation 1 . According
.
to Freidman 2 , in the US, hundreds of fat-free, fat-
reduced and low-fat new products have made their way
into virtually every category in the supermarket, as
manufacturers continue to search for ways to provide
indulgent, heart disease conscious consumers with less
fat but same flavour products.
The development of low-fat ground beef products, while
assuring the necessary palatability, is not just as simple
as removing fat. Fat is a calorie-dense nutrient that
provides flavour, juiciness, texture and entraps water in
ground meat products. With excessive fat reduction,
the products become bland and dry and the texture can
.
be hard, rubbery, or mealy 3 . These finding have been
.
supported by other research 48 . Consequently, there
are many low-fat meat systems containing fat substi -
tutes that act as texture-modifying agents in their abil-
ity to bind water. These generally fall into three cate-
* To whom correspondence should be addressed.
.
gories: i nonmeat proteins, for example, soya and milk
.
proteins; ii carbohydrate based, for example, car-
.
rageenan, starches and oat fibres; iii functional
blends which refer to various ingredient blends which
are formulated to achieve particular aims in fat
reduction.
.
Desmond et al. 9 examined 17 ingredients in low-fat
beef burgers and concluded that low-fat beef burgers
containing tapioca starch, oat fibre and whey protein
exhibited improved palatability of the beef burgers.
.
Knight and Perkin 10 reported that low-fat sausages
containing tapioca starch were more succulent and
juicer than sausages containing either soya or potato
starch while the losses during cooking were similar.
The advantages in the use of oat fibre include, its
superior ability to retain moisture and prevent meats
from drying out when cooked, since its mouthfeel imi-
tates fat and it has the ability to retain the natural
. .
flavourings of the meat 11 . El-Magoli et al. 12
concluded that whey protein concentrate may be effec-
tively used as a functional ingredient in low-fat beef
burgers due to its heat gelation and emulsifica-
tion properties, which enhance moisture and fat
entrapment.
Most research into the use of ingredients concentrates
0023-6438r98r070653 q05 $30.00r0 1998 Academic Press
653
. l wtrvol . 31 1998 No. 7 & 8
on one or more adjuncts being used individually. Both
. .
Troutt et al. 13 and Desmond et al. 9 concluded that
improvements in the palatability of low-fat ground beef
may be achieved with the addition of functional ingre-
dients, but more research is needed to optimise the
composition and methods of incorporation. Few studies
deal systematically with the identification of the most
appropriate combinations for producing low-fat beef
burgers or other processed meats. Studies of this kind
are important because the extent to which the
behaviour of any one ingredient influences another by
the presence of varying concentrations of other ingredi-

ents or the medium in which it functions fat, water

.
and protein is unknown. Thus, the quantity of any
ingredient required to achieve a given effect may vary.
The aim of this work was to assess the effects of
varying levels of tapioca starch, oat fibre and whey
protein on the physical, texture and sensory character-
istics of low-fat beef burgers. Response Surface
.
Methodology RSM was used for the simultaneous
analysis of the effects. The experimental design also
enables the evaluation of the possible existence of
interactive effects between the ingredients.
MaterialsandMethods
Beef burger formulation
The materials and preparation procedures used in this
investigation into beef burgers are described by
.
Desmond et al. 9 . Appropriate amounts of lean beef
and fat trimmings were combined to manufacture
batches of low-fat beef burgers with fat levels of 100
grkg, each containing combinations of tapioca starch

Tapiocaline EX533, Tipiak Ltd., Pont-Saint-Martin,

.
France , a partially pre-gelatinised starch, oat fibre

TM
Opta Oat Fibre 770, Williamson Fibre Products,
. .
Cork, I reland , and whey protein 35% protein
.
DairyGold Co-Op, Mitchelstown, Cork, I reland as per
.
experimental design Table1.
Experimental design
Response Surface Methodology was used to study the
simultaneous effects of three functional ingredients.
The studies were based on a central composite rotat-
. .
able design 14 . Five levels of each factor variable
were chosen in accordance with the principles of the
.
central composite design Table1. The factors studied
.
were: level of tapioca starch ranging from 030 grkg ,
.
level of oat fibre ranging from 020 grkg and level of
.
whey protein ranging from 020 grkg . The assess-
ment of error was derived from the replication of one
treatment combination, as suggested in the design.
Physical traits
The moisture, fat and protein of beef burger samples,
cook yield, water-holding capacity and reduction in
diameter were determined as described by Desmond et
.
al. 9 .
.
Table 1 Levels of tapioca starch grkg , oat fibre
. .
grkg and whey protein grkg making up the 20
systems stipulated in the experimental design
Number Tapioca starch Oat fibre Whey protein
1 15 10 10
2 6 4 16
3 6 16 16
4 24 4 16
5 15 10 20
6 15 10 0
7 6 4 4
8 15 0 10
9 30 10 10
10 24 16 4
11 6 16 4
12 24 4 4
13 15 20 10
14 0 10 10
15 24 16 16
16 15 10 10
17 15 10 10
18 15 10 10
19 15 10 10
20 15 10 10
Sensory analysis
Sensory Analysis was performed using a ten member
in-house taste panel to evaluate the beef burgers for a
number of textural, flavour and overall quality
attributes. The panel was chosen from a pool of 16
assessors selected for their experience in the sensory
analysis of meat products, and on their availability. The
training consisted of treatments presented in three
preliminary sessions to the panellists, to familiarise
them with the characteristics to be evaluated in accor-
dance with the American Meat Science Association
. .
AMSA guidelines 15 . During the preliminary ses-
sions the panellists were presented with examples of
toughrtender beef burgers. Tenderness, moistnessr
juiciness and meat flavour were evaluated using an

eight-point structured scale 8 sextremely tender,

.
juicy and intense; 1 sextremely tough, dry and bland .
Nonmeat flavour, overall flavour, overall texture and
overall acceptability were evaluated using a six-point

structured scale 6 sextremely intense, very good, very

good and extremely acceptable; 1 snone, very poor,
.
very poor and not acceptable . The beef burgers were
.
cooked as described by Desmond et al. 9 and cut into
quarters. Four samples per session were immediately
served to the panellists in random order. The panellists
were instructed to cleanse their palates between the
samples using water. Each sample was coded with
randomly selected three-digit numbers.
Mechanical textural analysis

An I nstron Universal Testing Machine Model 4464,

.
I nstron UK Ltd., Buckinghamshire, UK was used for
the objective evaluation of textural parameters.
Warner-Bratzler and Kramer shear forces were deter-
.
mined as described by Desmond et al. 9 . Five burgers
654
. l wtrvol . 31 1998 No. 7 & 8
per formulation were cooked and then cooled to room
.
temperature ;1 h before sampling.
Instrumental colour
Five raw beef burgers per formulation were removed
from their vacuum packs, and placed on a tray in a
display cabinet at 5 C for a 5 h blooming period. The
light in the cabinet was provided by two fluorescent
bulbs. After the blooming period, the colour of the
samples was measured using the Hunter LAB system

with a tristimulas colorimeter Hunterlab, Model No.

.
D-25, Fairfax, USA . The colorimeter was used with a
25 mm diameter viewing area and Hunter L, a and b
L L
values were measured. Three readings were taken from
each burger.
ResultsandDiscussion
Analysis of the results shows the effect of each variable
on the different properties studied. The effect of the
level of tapioca starch added, the level of oat fibre
added and the level of whey protein added on each
.
property was divided into first order linear , second
.
order quadratic and interactive interaction between
.
pairs of variables . The compositional analysis results
are shown in Table 2. The uncooked low-fat beef
burgers had a moisture content ranging from 668704
grkg with a mean value of 684 grkg, a fat content
ranging from 81105 grkg with a mean value of 94
grkg that was close to the target fat level of 100 grkg,
and a protein content ranging from 172196 grkg with
a mean value of 186 grkg.
.
Analysis of variance of the regression models Table3
for the different properties evaluated shows that mod-
.
els were significant P -0.05 for cooking properties
.
cook yield and water holding capacity , the sensory
.
Table 2 Proximate composition grkg of the differ-
ent low-fat beef burgers formulated
Number Moisture Fat Protein
1 685 93 185
2 687 101 187
3 672 103 196
4 678 97 195
5 689 81 192
6 695 88 183
7 689 95 194
8 679 105 186
9 671 93 182
10 670 98 187
11 695 84 181
12 675 101 187
13 668 100 176
14 704 94 188
15 679 89 180
16 690 92 180
17 689 94 185
18 693 90 188
19 689 92 187
20 690 97 172
Table 3 Analysis of variance of regression models
for cooking, sensory, mechanical texture and colour
properties for low-fat beef burgers
b a 2
Attribute Model R S
x
Cooking properties
Cook yield )) 0.729 1.71
% reduction in diameter NS 0.131 2.03
% reduction in thickness NS 0.281 3.40
Water holding capacity ))) 0.839 2.17
Sensory properties
Tenderness ) 0.617 0.28
Moistnessrjuiciness ) 0.536 0.33
Meaty flavour NS 0.069 0.21
Nonmeat flavour NS 0.457 0.24
Overall flavour NS 0.123 0.24
Overall texture NS 0.000 0.26
Overall acceptability NS 0.263 0.22
Mechanical texture properties
Warner-Bratzler peak force )) 0.762 1.36
Warner-Bratzler peak energy ) 0.617 0.02
Kramer shear peak force ))) 0.833 2.12
Kramer shear peak energy ))) 0.824 0.02
Raw colour properties
L value NS 0.118 1.61
a value NS 0.323 0.68
L
b value NS 0.135 0.43
L
a
significant at )))P -0.001, ))P -0.01 and )P -0.05;
n.s.snot significant
b
fitted for degrees of freedom
attributes of tenderness and moistnessrjuiciness and

the mechanical properties Warner-Bratzler shear peak

force and energy, Kramer shear peak force and energy.
.
The models were not significant P )0.05 for the
percentage reduction in diameter and thickness, meat
flavour, nonburger flavour, overall flavour, texture and
acceptability, and for the Hunter colour attributes of L,
.
a and b Table3.
L L
Effect of tapioca starch
.
Tapioca starch TS was the variable that most influ-
enced the various parameters evaluated. The effect on
.
the cook yield and water holding capacity WHC was
.
highly significant P -0.001 , positive and linear, and
no quadratic or interactive effects were observed
.
Table4. As more TS was added, less weight was lost
.
during cooking i.e., an increase in cook yield ; the
WHC increased in the same way as more TS was
added.
The absence of interactive effects on any of the proper-
ties examined indicates that the effects of TS are
.
independent of the other two ingredients Table 4.
There are no studies examining the effect of varying
amounts of tapioca starch on the characteristics of
low-fat beef burgers. I n most cases the influence of
specific amounts or other types of starches have been
analysed. The relationship between TS and cook yield
.
is consistent with the findings of Hart and Price 16
who found that low-fat beef burgers containing TS
655
. l wtrvol . 31 1998 No. 7 & 8
Table 4 Statistically significant regression coefficients from multiple regression analysis
TS OF WP TS=TS OF =OF
Parameter Const. RC P S RC P S RC P S RC P S RC P S
x x x x x
Cook Yield 67.02 3.38 ))) 0.46 0.63 NS 0.46 0.18 NS 0.46 y0.33 NS 0.45 y0.45 NS 0.45
W.H.C. 42.43 5.76 ))) 0.59 1.60 ) 0.59 y0.01 NS 0.59 0.04 NS 0.57 0.04 NS 0.57
Tenderness 6.87 0.45 ))) 0.08 y0.03 NS 0.08 y0.03 NS 0.08 y0.14 NS 0.07 y0.01 NS 0.07
Juiciness 5.89 0.45 ))) 0.09 y0.12 NS 0.09 0.02 NS 0.09 y0.09 NS 0.09 0.02 NS 0.09
WrB Peak Force 14.67 y2.91 ))) 0.37 y0.65 NS 0.37 0.42 NS 0.37 y0.08 NS 0.36 0.20 NS 0.20
WrB Peak Energy 0.14 y0.03 ))) 0.005 y0.01 ) 0.005 0.01 NS 0.005 y0.00 NS 0.004 y0.00 NS y0.00
KS Peak Force 36.55 y5.43 ))) 0.57 0.07 NS 0.57 y1.43 ) 0.57 0.79 NS 0.56 y0.98 NS y0.98
KS Peak Energy 0.224 y0.05 ))) 0.005 0.002 NS 0.005 0.01 NS 0.005 0.000 NS 0.005 y0.00 NS y0.00
TSsTapioca starch content; OF sOat fibre content; WPsWhey Protein Content; RC sRegression coefficient; P sSignificance level;
S sStandard error; significant at )))P -0.001, ))P -0.01, and )P -0.05
x
substantially improved cook yields when compared to
both low- and full-fat controls without added TS.
Overall, the models for the sensory attributes were not
.
significant P )0.05 except in the case of the tender-
.
ness and juiciness P -0.05 . I n both cases TS had a
. .
significant P -0.001 positive, linear effect Table4.
As the TS was increased the tenderness and juiciness

of the low-fat beef burgers also increased i.e., aiding in

the retention and subsequent release of moisture, re-
. .
sulting in increased succulence . Hart and Price 16
also found that the TS gave more desirable tenderness,
juiciness and textural properties in reduced fat beef
.
burgers. Knight and Perkin 10 reported that the
incorporation of tapioca starch into low-fat sausage
formulations, resulted in a product that was juicier and
softer than the control. I n contrast, Berry and Wergin
.
17 found that a modified pre-gelatinised potato starch
reduced juiciness scores.
The presence of TS had a highly significant, negative
. .
linear, effect P -0.001 on Warner-Bratzler WrB
.
peak force and peak energy Table4, and on Kramer
.
shear peak force and peak energy Table 4. No
significant quadratic or interactive effect on these
mechanical textural parameters was found. I n general,
increasing the TS resulted in lower force or energy
being required to shear the sample. Overall, the regres-
sion model for Kramer shear force was more highly
.
significant P -0.001 when compared to WrB peak
.
force P -0.01 . The regression models indicate, and
.
agree with other studies 13, 17 , that the greater the
amount of starch the lower the force required to shear
.
the low-fat treatments. Troutt et al. 13 found that
potato starch, in combination with polydextrose and
plant fibre ingredients in low-fat beef burgers reduced
peak load and total energy in contrast to 5 and 10% fat
control beef burgers, and had similar values when
compared to 20% fat beef burgers.
Effect of oat fibre
.
Although oat fibre OF had a limited influence on the
parameters measured, its presence resulted in some
variation in WHC, hardness and gumminess. There was
.
a significant P -0.05 influence on WHC in a positive
.
linear fashion Table 4. This shows that as OF was
increased the WHC of the low-fat beef burgers
increased. As with tapioca starch, there are no studies
which deal with the effect of varying amounts of oat
fibre on the properties of low-fat beef burgers. I n most
cases, the influence of specific amounts of ingredient
.
has been analysed. Pszczola 18 reported that oat bran
or fibre has the ability to retain moisture and prevents
.
meats from drying out when cooked. Troutt et al. 13
examined a number of texture-modifying ingredients
and found most of the ingredients, including oat fibre,
were equal to the 20% high fat beef burgers in juici-
ness. These authors also reported that a significant
difference, due to added ingredients including oat
fibre, occurred for the I nstron texture profile analysis
trait of hardness. I n general, beef burgers containing
oat fibre, in combination with polydextrose andror
potato starch, exhibited decreased hardness values
when compared to the low-fat control.
Effect of whey protein
The whey protein affected Kramer shear peak force
.
model in a negative linear manner P -0.05 . As with
the other two variables, the absence of any interactive
effect indicates that the effect of WP is independent of
these variables. I n general, as whey protein is added a
lower Kramer peak force is required to shear the
sample. Few studies have been conducted on varying or
specific amounts of whey in comminuted meat products
such as beef burgers. Most attention has focused on
emulsion-type products such as frankfurters or bologna
sausage.
.
El-Magoli et al. 12 investigated the addition of four
. .
levels 040 grkg of whey protein concentrate WPC
into low-fat beef burger formulations. They found that
with 30 grkg, WPC hardness and chewiness increased,
but at a 40 grkg level these attributes were
reduced. The springiness remained relatively constant
throughout.
Conclusions
The tapioca starch had the greatest effect on the
parameters studied. For each model that was signifi-
cant, the tapioca starch exerted a linear effect and in
some cases a quadratic effect. Both oat fibre and whey
protein had a very limited influence, only exerting a
linear effect on two parameters. This could be due to a
656
. l wtrvol . 31 1998 No. 7 & 8
masking effect by the tapioca starch. The lack of any
interactive effects between the variables shows that the
contribution made by any one ingredient to the charac-
teristics of the low-fat beef burgers was not generally
affected by the others.
The sensory analysis showed that no significant differ-
ence was found for all the attributes, except for tender-
ness and moistnessrjuiciness. Overall, the panellists
rated the beef burgers to be acceptable in flavour and
texture and no off-flavours were detected. All of the
models for the mechanical texture parameters mea-
.
sured on the I nstron were significant P -0.05 .
The response surface methodology showed that as tapi-
oca starch increased the low-fat beef burgers had higher
cook yield and higher water retention, resulting in a
more tender and juicy product. Similarly, tapioca starch
was highly significant in influencing the mechanical
texture parameters, thus, the force required to shear or
compress the sample decreased with increasing levels.
The oat fibre also aided in water retention, producing a
more juicy product. Whey protein only influenced the
Kramer shear peak force.
Acknowledgements

The authors wish to thank Teagasc Agricultural and

.
Food Development Authority and the EU AAI R pro-

gram, for the funding of this research Project No.

.
AI R2-CT93-1691 . Also, the companies who supplied
the ingredients as well as technical assistance. Refer-
ence to brand or trade name does not constitute en-
dorsement by The National Food Centre or The
European Union.
References
1 HUFFMAN, D. L. Technology of low fat ground beef.
. Proceedings: Reciprocal Meat Conference, 44, 7379 1991
2 FRI EDMAN, M. New products come alive in 95. Prepared
. Foods, 165, 2532 1996
3 KEETON, J. T. Low-fat meat productsTechnological
problems with processing. Meat Science, 36, 261276
. 1994
4 CROSS, H. R., BERRY, B. W., AND WELLS, L. H. Effects of
fat level and source on the chemical, sensory and cooking
properties of ground beef patties. Journal of Food Science,
. 45, 791793 1980
5 EGBERT, W. R., HUFFMAN, D. L., CHEN, C. M., AND
DYLEWSKI , D. P. Development of low fat ground beef
. Food Technology, 45, 6473 1991
6 BERRY, B. Low fat effects on sensory, shear, cooking and
chemical properties of ground beef patties. Journal of
. Food Science, 57, 537574 1992
7 TROUTT, E. S., HUNT, M. C., JOHNSON, D. E., CLAUS, J.R.,
KASTNER, C.L., KROPF, D. H., AND STRODA, S. Chemical,
Physical and sensory characterisation of ground beef con-
taining 5 to 30 percent fat. Journal of Food Science, 57,
. 2529 1992
8 MI LLER, M. F., ANDERSEN, M. K., RAMSEY, C. B., AND
REAGAN, J. O. Physical and sensory characteristics of low
fat ground beef patties. Journal of Food Science, 58,
. 461463 1993
9 DESMOND, E. M., TROY, D. J., AND BUCKLEY, D. J.
Comparative studies of non-meat ingredients used in the
manufacture of low-fat beef burgers. Journal of Muscle
( ) . Foods, 93, 221241 1998 .
10 KNI GHT, M. K. AND PERKI N, J. The use of tapiocaline in
British sausages. Meat Manufacturing and Marketing, 5,
. 2930 1991
11 MEI NHOLD, N. M. Processed meats with 3875% less fat.
. Food Processing, 52, 105106 1991
12 EL-MAGOLI , S. B., LAROI A, S., AND HANSEN, P. M. T.
Flavour and texture characteristics of low fat ground beef
patties formulated with whey protein concentrate. Meat
. Science, 42, 179193 1996
13 TROUTT, E. S., HUNT, M. C., JOHNSON, D. E., CLAUS, J. R.,
KASTNER, C. L., AND KROPF, D. H. Characteristics of low
fat ground beef containing texture modifying ingredients.
. Journal of Food Science, 57, 1924 1992
14 COCHRAN, W. G. AND COX, G. M. Experimental Designs,
2nd Edn., New York: John Wiley & Sons, I nc. pp. 335369
. 1957
15 AMSA. Guidelines for Sensory, Physical and Chemical
Measurements in Ground Beef. Proc: Repcip. Meat Conf.,
. 36, 221228 1983
16 HART, B. AND PRI CE, K. New potential for low fat beef
. burgers. Food Manufacture, 68, 4243 1993
17 BERRY, B. AND WERGI N, W. P. Modified pregelatinized
potato starch in low fat ground beef patties. Journal of
. Muscle Foods, 4, 305320 1993
18 PSZCZOLA, D. E. Oat-bran based ingredient blend
replaces fat in ground beef and pork sausage. Food
. Technology, 45, 6066 1991
657