Quality And Acceptability Of Burger Patty As Influenced By The Levels Of Mung Bean (Vigna Radiata) Flour As Meat Substitute

Clarita  E. Morbos,; Eliza  C. Cabugawan,; Jenalyn  M. Gonzaga,; Lorina  A. Galvez,; Melogen  Bandalan,

Quality And Acceptability Of Burger Patty As Influenced By The Levels Of Mung Bean (Vigna Radiata) Flour As Meat Substitute

Clarita E. Morbos | Jenalyn M. Gonzaga | Lorina A. Galvez | Melogen Bandalan | Eliza C. Cabugawan

Abstract:

This study was undertaken to evaluate the effects of different levels of mung bean flour as meat substitute on the sensory quality of burger patties, determine the physicochemical properties, and compare production costs of burger patties containing varying levels of mung bean flour. The mung bean flour was prepared by drying and grinding the mung bean seeds. Five levels (10, 20, 30, 40, 50%) of mung bean was used as replacement for lean meat in the formulation with 0% mung bean flour used as control. The physicochemical composition of the patties was determined. The sensory attributes were evaluated by thirty semi-trained panelists. Data on physicochemical characteristics were analyzed by one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) while quality description of the sensory attributes were evaluated in combination with the 9-Point Hedonic Scale and the mean acceptability ratings were analyzed using Friedman Test. Thirty percent mung bean flour substitute is possible to the production of burger patty without significant effect on the sensory attributes, and the burger patty is comparable to the all-meat control. However, proximate composition in terms of crude protein and fat/ether extract contents were comparable to the control only up to 20% level of mung bean powder substitution. Thickness expansion was greatest at 20% substitution, but diameter shrinkage and cooking loss were minimal at 30% and even up to 50% substitution, consequently increasing the cooking yield. Production costs decreased with increasing substitution level of mung bean flour in the formulation. Across all parameters, the optimum level of mung bean flour appears to be at 30% substitution of meat in the burger patty.

References:

Association of Official Agricultural Chemists.1985. Official Methods of Analysis. Association of official analytical Chemists (14th edn). Washington, D.C
Aruna V and Prakash V. 1993. Functional properties of the total protein of sun-flour seed. Effect of physical and chemical treatments. Journal of Agricultural Food Chemistry 41(1):18-23
Bender A. 1992. Meat and meat products in human nutrition in developing countries. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), Food and Nutrition Paper 53, Italy, Rome.http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0562e/t0562 e00.htm
Bhat ZF and Pathak V. 2009. Effect of mung bean (Vigna radiata) on quality characteristics of oven roasted chicken seekh kababs. Fleischwirtschaft International 6:58-60
Chrystall B. 1994. Meat texture measurement. In Pearson AM and Dutson TR (eds) Quality Attributes and their Measurement in Meat, Poultry and Fish Products (pp316-336). Black Academic & Professional, UK
Dransfield E. 1994. Tenderness of meat, poultry and fish. In Pearson AM and Dutson TR (eds) Quality Attributes and their Measurement in Meat, Poultry and Fish Products (pp289- 315). Black Academic & Professional. UK
Dzudie T, Joel Scher J & Hardy J. 2002. Common bean flour as an extender in beef sausages. Journal of Food Engineering 52(2):143-147
Egbert WR, Huffman DL, Chen CM & Dylewski DP. 1991. Development of low-fat ground beef. Food Technology 45(6):64-66 Gill JL. 1981. Design and Analysis of Experiments in the Animal and Medical Sciences (2nd edn). ISBN. USA
Gujral HS, Kaur A, Singh N & Sodhi SN. 2002. Effect of liquid whole egg, fat and textured soy protein on the textural and cooking properties of raw and baked patties from goat meat. Journal of Food Engineering 53(4):377-385
Jimenez-Colmenero F, Carballo J & Cofrade S. 2001. Healthier meat and meat products: Their role as functional foods. Meat Science 59(1):5-13
Khalid EK, Babiker EF & Eltinay AH. 2003. Solubility and functionality properties of sesame seed protein as influenced by pH and/or salt concentration. Food Chemistry 82(3):361-366
Khalil A. 2006. Nutritional improvement of an Egyptian breed of mung bean by probiotic lactobacilli. African Journal of Biotechnology 5(2):206-212
Lawrie RA. 1979. Meat Science (3rd edn). Pergamon Press, New York
Liu K. 2000. Expanding soy bean food utilization. Food Technology 54(7):46-58 Modi VK, Mahendrakar NS, Rao DN & Sachindra NM. 2004. Quality of buffalo meat burger containing legume flours as binders. Meat Science 66(1):143-149
Nag S, Sharma BD & Kumar S. 1998. Quality attributes and shelf life of chicken. nuggets extended with rice flour. Indian Journal of Poultry Science 33(2):182-186
Nestle M. 1999. Animal v. plant foods in human diets and health: Is the historical record unequivocal. The Proceedings of the Nutrition Society 58(2):211-218.
PMID:10466159 Reineccius G. 1994. Flavor and aroma chemistry. Advance in Meat Research 9:184-185
Roberts LH. 1974. Sausage emulsion-functionality of non-meat proteins during emulsification. In proceedings, Meat Industry Conference, American Meat Institute, Washington, D.C
Serdarouglu M and Degimencioglu 0. 2004. Effect of fat level (5, 10 and 20%) and corn flour (0, 2 and 4%) on some properties of Turkish type meatballs (koefte). Meat Science 68(2):291-296
Varnam AL and Sutherland JP. 1995. Meat and Meat Products 3:2-150. Chapman and Hall 2-6 Boundary Row. London.
http://www.fao.org/docrep/010/ai407e/A1407E.htm
http://www.fao.org/docrep/t0562e03.htm
canada2017appalication@gmail.com oct31