Sensory, Instrumental Texture Profile and Cooking Properties of

Restructured Beef Steaks Made with Various Binders

C.M. CHEN and G.R. TROUT

ABSTRACT
Restructured steaks made with various binders were evaluated using
subjective and objective texture profile analysis of the following treat-
ments: intact ribcye muscle, calcium alginate, salt/tripolyphosphate,
crude myosin extract, whey protein, wheat gluten, soy protein isolate,
surimi and no additives. Steaks made with calcium alginate or crude
myosin extracts had superior binding. Steaks with 1.5% surimi had
similar textural propertics to those with calcium alginate or crude
myosin extract. Whey, wheat gluten or soy isolate protein in restruc-
tured steaks detrimentally affected product flavor. Calcium alginate,
crude myosin extract and surimi could be potential binders in the
manufacture of restructured steaks without deterimental effects on
quality.
Key Words: Beef, texture, sensoryevaluation, restructuredmeat, binders
from fish muscle, may also be effective due to its unique bind-
ing ability (Burgarella et al., 1985).
There are, however, textural problems associated with re-
structured meat products manufactured using current technol-
ogy. These include excessive or insufficient protein binding,
distortion of the product during cooking, connective tissue res-
idue, crust formation on the surface of cooked product, sepa-
ration, layering and/or pocket formation in the cooked product,
and nonuniform texture (Berry, 1987). Researchon the use of
various binders in restructured meat products and their influ-
ence on textural properties is limited. Hence, our research ob-
jective was to compare the textural properties of restructured
beef steaksmade with various binders to those of intact muscle
beef steak.

INTRODUCTION MATERIALS & METHODS

Meat and additives
SALT AND PHOSPHATE are currently used in the manufac-
ture of restructured meat products because of their beneficial Top rounds (semimembranosus)(cap off) and bonelessribeyes (lon-
effects on texture, yield and flavor (Schnell et al., 1970; Man- gissimus dorsi) from USDA Choice beef carcasseswere used for the
products. Top rounds were obtained (John Morrell & Co., Montgom-
digo et al., 1972; Schmidt and Trout, 1982). However, salt is ery, AL) 24 hr postmortem for each of three replications and trimmed
associatedwith discoloration of fresh restructured meat prod- of all visible fat and connective tissue. For the intact steak treatment,
ucts (Chu et al., 1987), rancidity development (Huffman and whole sections (longissimus dorsi) were removed from the boneless
Cordray, 1979; Trout and Schmidt, 1987) and may be a con- ribeye (24 hr postmortem) and trimmed to about the same sizes as the
tributor to hypertension in susceptible segments of the popu- diam of casings. For restructured treatments, semimembranosusmus-
lation (Tobian, 1979; Pearson and Wolzak, 1982). Partial or cles were ground through a 3-hole kidney plate (2.5 x 6.0 cm*) with
complete replacement of salt with binders is a possible means a four-blade knife grinder to form meat chunks.
of maintaining, and/or improving, quality of restructured beef Additives used for preparation of treatments included reagent grade
steaks. sodium chloride and calcium carbonate (Fisher Scientific Co., Fair
Lawn, NJ), food grade sodium tripolyphosphate (FMC Corporation,
Proteins derived from a variety of plant and animal sources Philadelphia, PA), sodium alginate (Manugel DMB, Kelco, Clark,
are used by the meat industry to reduce product cost and im- NJ), encapsulatedlactic acid (LCL-135-50, Balchem Co., Slate Hill,
prove functionality. Soy protein (SP), whey protein (WP), and NY), whey protein concentrate(Alacen 882, New Zealand Milk Prod-
vital wheat gluten (WG) are nonmeat proteins commonly used. ucts, Inc., Petaluma, CA), isolated soy protein (Protein Technologies
Many studies have evaluated the effect of those proteins as International, St. Louis, MO), wheat gluten (Supergluten-75, Ogilvie
binders, fillers and extenders in various meat systems. These Mills, Inc., Minnetonka, MN), surimi (Alaska Fisheries Association,
include production of comminuted and emulsified products, AK) and deionized water. Extracted beef crude myosin was prepared
ground beef and beef patties, and restructured poultry products by the method of Turner et al. (1979).
(Parks and Carpenter, 1987; Proteous and Quinn, 1979; Terre11
et al., 1982). However, limited information is available re- Product preparation
garding use of nonmeatproteins as binders in restructuredsteaks
(Miller et al., 1986; Seidemanet al., 1982; Siegel et al., 1979; The nine treatments are summarized in Table 1. The experiment
Hand et al., 1981). Previous research with nonmeat proteins was replicated three times. Restructured steakswere prepared by mix-
ing meat chunks for 5 min (except salt and phosphate treatment) in a
as binders in restructured steaks has been reported separately, Hobart paddle type mixer (Model H-120, Hobart Co., Troy, OH) on
and comparisons between different studies are difficult to in- speed setting 2 (200 rpm). Preliminary work (Trout and Chen, 1989)
terpret.
In addition other proteins and carbohydrates have potential
value as binders in restructured meat products. Combinations Table I- Treatment formulations and preparation procedures
of sodium alginate and calcium carbonate have been used as Mixing
efficient binders in both raw and cooked restructured steaks Trt Binder time Water NaCl STP
(Means and Schmidt, 1986; Means et al., 1987). Also, crude code Treatment w (min) wd (%) (%)
Intact muscle - - -
myosin extracted from beef muscle was an effective binder in
!A Calcium carbonate
restructured beef steaks (Ford et al., 1978). Surimi, a product Sodium alginate ii
Encapsulated lactate 0.5 7.0 - -
SP Salt/STP 5
Author Chen, formerly with the Dept. of Animal & Dairy Sci- Crude myosina 5 (%, A:2 :::5
ences and Alabama Agricultural Experiment Station, Auburn Univ. ii! Whey protein 2 5 7.0 0.13 0.05
AL 36849, is now with North Side Packing Co., 2200 Rivers Edge WG Wheat gluten 2:o 5 7.0 0.13 0.05
Drive, Arnold, PA 15068. Author Trout, formerly with the Dept. SI Soy protein isolate 2.0 5 7.0 0.13 0.05
su Surimi 1.5 7.0 0.13 0.05
of Animal & Dairy Sciences, Auburn Univ., is now with CSIRO RC Reconstructured control - z 7.0 - -
Division of Food Research, Meat Research Laboratory, P.O. Box
12, Cannon Hill, Queensland, Australia. a Proteincontentof crude myosinextractwas 6%.
Finalcrude myosincontentin the productwas 0.5%.

Volume 56, No. 6, 1991-JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE-1457

PROPERTIES OF RESTRUCTURED BEEF STEAKS. . a
in the: manufacture of restructured steaks with salt and phosphate in-
dicatcd mixing meat chunks for 5 min caused loss of steak like texture
on the final product. Therefore, the mixing time for the salt and phos-
phatc treatment was reduced to 3 min. During mixing, nonmeat in-
gredicnts and binders were added in accordance with the formulations
shown in Table 1. The blended material from each treatment was
stuffed into 1.5-cm-diameter (for instrumental trials) or 12.5-cm-di-
ameter polyethylene casings (for sensory trials). With intact muscle
treatment, the whole muscle sections were stuffed into casings as
previously described for restructured products.
All logs except the calcium alginate (CA) treatment were frozen
immediately aft& preparation at - 34C for 48 hr. The CA treatment
was stored at 4C for 24 hr and then frozen at -34C for 24 hr. Fortv-
tight hr after preparation, each 10.5-cm log was sliced into 2-cm
steakcttes using a bandsaw with a stainless steel blade. Each steak
was wrapped with oxygen permeable plastic interleaf sheets (Super
Un-Lox, Phillius Petroleum Co., Chicago. IL), olaced in E-Z Pak
poiy mkat bags (2 Mil, low-density, frieiingiesist) and stored at
- 23C for further analysis. The 12.5-cm logs were vacuum packaged
and stored at -80C for about 1 month and then sliced into 1.5-cm Ill.
steakcttes for sensory evaluation.
Cooking procedures
Steaks were removed from the freezer and held at room temperature
for about 30 min before cooking. Weight and dimensional measure-
ments before cooking were made during this time. Steaks were cooked
from the frozen state on a Model TMM-36 Special McDonalds grill
(Wolf Range Corporation, Compton, CA) at 165C. Cooper constan-
tan thermocouples were inserted into the approximate geometric center
of each steak to monitor internal temperature. Steaks were cooked on
each side for 3 min alternately to internal temperature of 70C (total
cooking time was 12 min for 2-cm steakettes and 9 min for 1.5-cm
steakettes).
Cooking loss and dimensional changes
Steaks were weighed and thickness and diam measured before and
after cooking to determine cooking losses and dimensional changes.
The diam and thickness of frozen and cooked steaks was measured
with a micrometer (Manostat, Bern, Switzerland) at 3 random loca-
tions and expressed as percentage changes.
Cooking losses were determined as follows:
Raw wt - Cooked wt x 1oo
Cooking loss (%) =
Raw wt
Percentage changes in dimensions were calculated as follows:
Raw diam - Cooked diam
Diameter change (%) = x 100
Raw diam
Thickness change
Raw thickness - Cooked thickness
(%) = x 100
Raw thickness
Sensory texture profile evaluation
Texture of restructured beef steaks was evaluated by a 13-member
trained sensory panel. Panel training was conducted during several
sessions according to procedures described by Civille and Szczesniak
(9173). Procedures and textural parameters used for panel evaluation
were adapted from those described by Berry (1987) and Brady et al.
(1985). Steaks (1.5 cm thick) were cooked as previously described
and then cut into 2-cm squares. Three treatments were served in every
section to panel members. Panel members evaluated samples for sprin-
giness, cohesiveness, hardness, moisture release, denseness, sepa-
ration of chunks, chewiness, cohesiveness of mass, juiciness,
adhesiveness, mealiness, mouth coating and nonmeat flavor on an
eight-point scale. Definitions and procedures are described in Table
2.
Instrumental texture profile
The procedure used for instrumental texture profile analysis was
similar to those described by Bourne (1982) and Brady et al. (1985).
Two frozen steaks per treatment were cooked as previously described
and texture profile was measured with an Instron Universal Testing
145R-JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE-Volume 56, No. 6, 7991
Table 2-Texture profile panel attributes, procedures and description for
restructured beef steaks
Partial compression:
Place a warm, 4-cm2 piece in the mouth, using the mo-
lar against the cooked surfaces, press lightly five times.
Wait 2 set between presses.
Springiness-The perceived degree and speed with
which the sample returns to the original height and
thickness after pressing five times.
First bite:
Take a warm, 4.0-cm2 piece and place it in the mouth
and, using the molars against the cooked surfaces, make
the first incision and evaluate for:
Cohesiveness-The degree to which the sample de
forms before shearing.
Hardness-Amount of force required to bite through
sample.
Moisture release-Amount of juiciness perceived dur
ing the first bite.
Compactness-Degree the meat particles are crowded
together.
Mastication:
Take a warm, 4.0-cm* sample, make the first incision
as for first bite. Then turn the two pieces 90 degrees
and take a second bite. Evaluate for:
Chunk separation-check the appropriate breakdown
category.
Continue chewing and count the
number of chews then evaluate for:
Chewiness-Number of chews reauired to .oreoare
sample for swallowing.
Cohesiveness of mass-The degree to which meat
chunks bind together.
Juiciness-The amount of juice released.
Adhesiveness-Degree to which sample sticks to mouth.
Mealiness-The degree of powdery or hamburger-like
pieces perceived during chewing.
IV. After swallowing
Mouth coating-Amount of film residue left on mouth
surface after swallowing.
Nonmeat flavor-Amount of nonmeat flavor left in the
mouth after swallowing.
Machine (Model 1011, Instron Corp., Canton, MA). Four 2.5-cm
squares were removed from the center portion of each cooked steak
and compressed to 50% of original height. A SO-kg load cell was used
with a load range of O-50 kg at crosshead and chart speeds of 200
mm/min. Two compression cycles per slice were generated to form a
two-bite work-force compression curve. The textural parameters
derived from the two successive compression curves were hardness,
cohesiveness, springiness, gumminess and chewiness (Bourne, 1968).
Warner-Bratzler shear force
Steaks were cooked as previously described and cut into 2.5-cm
squares. Eight squares from each treatment were sheared using a War-
ner-Bratzler shear cell attachment on the Instron Universal Testing
Machine (Model 1011, Instron Corp., Canton, MA). Samples were
placed perpendicular to the shear blade and sheared once. A 50-kg
load cell with a load range of O-SO kg was used and crosshead and
chart speeds were set at 200 mm/min. Shear force values were re-
ported as kg per 6.25 cm*.
Tensile strength measurement
Steaks were cooked as previously described and cut into slices (1.5
cm wide x 0.8 cm thick) by hand with a templet. Two cooked steaks
of each treatment (8-10 slices) were subjected to measurement of
tensile strength witha modifiedwarner-Bratzler Meat Shear Machine
(Model 2000, G.R. Electric Mfg. Co., Manhattan, KS) (Trout and
Schmidt, 1984). Tensile strength was expressed as g/cm2 cross-sec-
tional area.
Statistical analysis
Data were analyzed using a completely randomized block design
with 9 treatments and 3 replications. For sensory evaluation, an in-
complete block design (partial lattice design) was used to eliminate
the variation of experimental units within an incomplete block (Coch-
ran and Cox, 1957). Analysisof variance, means and standard errors
were computed using the Statistical Analysis System (SAS, 1982).
 Table 3-Sensory texture profile analysis of restructured beef steaks
Sensory parameter&
Trte SPRG HARD MORE MSCO JUIC MEAL MOCO NOMF
4.47= 4.98b 5.84b 5.90 6.17Db 3.33d 2.46d 2.53d
cA 5.19& 4.1oc 4.84~ 5.22Ob 4.87Cd 4.ooc 2.76bcd 2.84cd
SP 6.41 5.31 6.72 5.830b 6.78 3.45d 2.74bcd 3.13bcd
CM 5.91ab 5.388 5.44bC 5.60ab 5.46bC 3.54d 2.67Cd 2.77d
WP 4.90bc 5.07ab 5.64C 5.00b 5.39bcd 4.36abc 3.02ab 3.72bC
WG 5.74ab 4.51bc 5.36bC 4.94b 5.19c* 4.54b 2.91b 3.87b
SI 5.65ab 4.62& 5.25bC 4.95ab 5.08Cd 4.74 3.17 4.79
su 5.63ab 4.82ab 5.14bc 5.10b 5.00Cd 4.74= 2.78bcd 2.90Cd
5.76ab 4.97b 4.93bC 5.07ab 4.57d 4.17bC 2.56d 2.61d
0.26 0.09 0.20 0.10 0.15 0.05 0.03 0.10
abed Means in the same row with different superscripts are different (PcO.05).
LITreatment:see Table 1 for definitions
Evaluationon en E-pointscale(1 = extremelynonspringy,extremelysoft, extremelydry, extremelynoncohesive,extremelydry, devoid,none, none: 8 = extremelyspringy,
extremely hard, extremely juicy, extremely cohesive, extremely juicy, extremely abundant, extremely coated, extremely intense).
g Sensory parameter: SPRG = springiness; HARD = hardness; MORE = moisture release; MSCO = mass cohesiveness; JUIC = juiciness; MEAL = mealiness; MOCO =
mouth coating;NOMF = nonmeatflavor.

Fishers Least Significant Difference test was used to determine dif- Table 4-lnsrrwnenral texture profile analysis of restructured beef steaks
fcrcncesbetweentreatmentmeans (Steel and Torrie, 1980) when analysis Trt Hardness Cohesiveness Springiness Gumminess Chewiness
of variance indicated a significant effect at PcO.05 level. 9.78bc 0.31d 0.49d 2.84d 1.318
!A 7.98d 0.40d 0.67c 3.12d 2.00d
SP 12.47b 0.39c 0.85b 4.8gbc 4.13b
RESULTS & DISCUSSION CM 12.50b 0.44h 0.7lC 5.33bC 3.73b
Sensory texture profile WP 9.17Cd 0.44bc 0.68C 3.95Cd 2.67d
WG 11.91b 0.41bc 0.7oc 4.93bC 3.48bC
There were no differences (P ~0.05) between treatments for SI 12.09b 0.46bC 0.74c 5.66b 4.11b
cohesiveness, compactness, separation of meat chunks, chew- 10.83bc 0.46bc 0.66C 5.01bc 3.30bc
iness or adhesiveness(data not shown). However, there were ii 10.04bcd 0.48b 0.67c 4.84bC 3.15bc
SEM 0.35 0.01 0.01 0.19 0.14
differences (P ~0.05) between treatments for springiness, hard- a Hardness = peak force during first compression cycle; cohesiveness ratio of force
ness, moisture release, cohesivenessof mass, juiciness, meal- area during second compressionto that during first compression;springiness=
iness, mouth coating and nonmeat flavor (Table 3). height the meat recovers during the time that elapses between end of fist bite and
Springinessscores (during the first bite) were lower (PcO.05) start of second bite; gumminess = product of hardness x cohesiveness; chewiness
for intact ribeye (IR) steaks than for steaks from all other = product of gumminessx springiness.
we Means in the same column with a different superscript are different (P<O.O5).
treatments, except restructured steaks made with CA and WP. Treatment: see Table 1 for definitions
Restructured streaks made with CA had lower (P < 0.05) hard-
ness scores than all other treatments except for restructured
steaks made with WG or SI. Restructured steaks from all treat- made with ST, CA, CM, or SU had similar mouth coating and
ments (except calcium alginate) had similar hardness scores to nonmeat flavor scores to the IR steaks and C. Results of sen-
IR. There was greater (PcO.05) moisture release from steaks sory texture profile evaluation for mouth coating and nonmeat
made with NaCl and STP (SP) than from all other steaks except flavor were similar to those reported by Seideman et al. (1982)
for IR. No differences (P>O.O5) were found among the re- and Hand et al. (1981). Seideman et al. (1982) found that
maining treatments for moisture release scores. restructured steaks made with 2% WG had rancid, bitter and
Restructured steaks produced with WG had lower (P < 0.05) other off-flavors. Hand et al. (1981) reported that restructured
cohesiveness of mass scores (determined during mastication) steaks made with WG were less detrimental to off-flavor than
than IR. There was no difference (PcO.05) for cohesiveness steaks made with SI.
of mass scores between IR and restructured steaks made with
CA, SP, crude myosin extract (CM), WP, SI, surimi (SU), or
restructured control (C). Instrumental texture profile analysis
Sensory panel scores for juiciness (determined during mas-
tication) followed similar trends as the results for moisture There were differences (PcO.05) between steaks for instru-
release. Panelists rate IR and restructured steaks made with SP mental hardness, cohesiveness, springiness, gumminess and
higher (P ~0.05) for juiciness than steaks containing CA, WG, chewiness values (Table 4). Steaks with CM, SP, WG, or SI
SI, SU or the restructured control. Restructured control (no were harder {P < 0.05) than those made with CA or WP. Steaks
additives) had a lower (PcO.05) juiciness score than IR steaks with CA had lower (PcO.05) scores for hardness than those
and restructured steaks made with S.P, or CM. Steaks contain- from all other treatments except IR steaks and restructured
ing SP, CM, or WP had similar Jmciness scores to the IR steaks with WP or no additives.
steaks. This indicated that SP increased water-holding capacity IR steaks had the lowest (PcO.05) score for cohesiveness.
of the restructured steaks, which was in agreementwith earlier Restructured control had the higher (P < 0.05) cohesiveness
reports of Huffman et al. (1981) and Hand et al. (1981). scores than IR steak and restructured steaks with CA or SP.
IR steaks and the restructured steaks with SP or CM were Ony minor differences occurred in cohesivenessbetween steaks
less (P < 0.05) mealy during mastication than the other steaks. from other treatments, except IR steak and C. Springiness was
Additionally, restructured steaks made with SI or SU were greatest (PcO.05) forsteaks with SP and least for IR steaks.
more mealy (P < 0.05) than those from other treatments except For gumminess, the IR steaks and the restructured steaks with
those made with WP or WG. CA had lower (PcO.05) values than those from other treat-
The restructured steaks produced with SI had more pro- ments except for the restructured steaks made with WP. No
nounced (P < 0.05) mouth coating than the other steaks, except significant difference (P > 0.05) was observed for gumminess
the restructured steaks made with WP or WG. No differences between steaks from the remaining treatments. Steaks prepared
(P>O.O5) were found for mouth coating between steaks pro- with CA had similar chewiness values to IR steaks which had
duced with CA, SP, CM, SU, or C and IR steaks. A stronger the lowest chewiness scores. Steaks with SP, CM extract, or
(PcO.05) nonmeat flavor was detected in restructured steaks SI had higher (PcO.05) chewiness values than those from other
made with SI than steaks from all other treatments. Steaks treatments, except C and steaks with WG and SU.

Volume 56, No. 6, 1991-JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE-1459

PROPERTIES OF RESTRUCTURED BEEF STEAKS. .
Table 5- Phvsical and cookina orooerties of restructured beef steaks REFERENCES
Tensile Cook
strength IOSS Dimensional changes (%) Berry, B.W. 1987. Texture in restructured meats. Ch. 7. In Advance in
Trte WcmZ) (%) Diameter Thickness Meat Research, Vol. 3. Restructured Meat and Poultry Products, A.M.
Pearson and T.R. Dutson (Ed.), p. 271. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co. Inc.,
IR 303' 17.3Cd - 15.2 -11.31 New York.
CA 204bc 15.6d -12.6" -4.9" Bourne, M.C. 1968. Texture profile or ripening pears. J. Food Sci. 33: 223.
236b 17.5Cd -15.7' i8.7b Bourne, M.C. 1982. Food Texture and Viscosity: Concept and Measurement,
Kl ia3=d 25.5sb -17.0' -5.9" G.F. Stewart, B.S. Schweigert, and J. Hawthorn (Ed.). Academic Press
145d 21.4bc - 14.9' - 6.9' Inc., New York.
K 185Cd 25.4ab - 15.9' -7.2' Brady, P.L., McKeith, F.K., and Hunecke, M.E. 1985. Comparison of sen-
sory and instrumental texture refile techniques for the evaluation of
162cd 24.3'b -16.11 -6.3" beef and beef-soy loaves. J. FooB Sm. 50: 1537.
ss1 168" 25.5'b -15.2' -9.4' Burgarella, J.C., Lanier, T.C., and Hamann, D.D. 1985. Effects of added
154Cd 28.8' -17.30 -8.60 egg or wheat protein concentrate on thermal transitions in rigidity of
-s"EM 60 8.3 3.0 la.8 croaker surimi. J. Food Sci. 50: 1588.
Chu, Y.H., Huffman, W.R., Trout, G.R., and Egbert, W.R. 1987. Color and
ObcdMeans in the same column with a different superscript are different color stability of frozen restructured beef steaks: Effect of sodium chlo-
(PcO.05). ride, tripolyphosphate, nitrogen atmosphere and processing procedures.
0 Treatment: see Table 1 for definitions. J. Food Sci. 52: 869.
Civille. G.V. and Szczesnizk. AS. 1973. Guidelines to trainine a texture
rofiie panel. J. Texture Studies 4: 204.
Clarke, A.D., Sofos, J.N. , and Schmidt, G.R. 1988. Effect of a&in/calcium
Warner-Bratzler shear force and tensile strength bi3nd7;;levels on various characteristics of structured beef. J. Food Sci.
Warner-Bratzler shear force values were not affected (P > 0.05) Cochran,W.G. and Cox, G.M. 1957. Experimental Designs, 2nd ed. John
Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
by the different binders or processing procedures. The mean Ford, A.L, Jones, P.N., Macfarlane, J.J., Schmidt, G.R., and Turner, R.H.
value for the shear force measurement of all treatments was 1978. Bmding of meat pieces: Objective and subjective assessment of
3.54. kg/per 6.25 cm2 area (SEM = 0.71). Tensile strength restructured steakettes containing added myosin and/or sarcoplasmic
protein. J. Food Sci. 43: 815.
values were different (P < 0.05) between steaks. IR steaks had Hand, L.W., Crenwelge, C.H,, and Terrell, R.N. 1981. Effects of wheat
the highest tensile strength values. Steaks containing SP had gluton, soy isolate and flavormgs on properties of restructured beef steaks.
J. Food Sci. 46: 1004.
higher (PcO.05) tensile strength values than all other treat- Huffman, D.L. and Cordra J.C. 1979. Restructured fresh meat cuts from
ments except the IR steak and those with CA. These results chilled and hot processecf pork. J. Food Sci. 44: 1564.
Huffman, D.L:, Ly, A.M., and Cordray, J.C. 1981. Effect of salt concentra-
agreed with those reported by Huffman et al. (1981) and Trout tion on quahty of restructured pork chops. J. Food Sci. 46: 1563.
and Schmidt (1984), who found that salt and phosphate im- Mandigo, R.W., Hansen, K.R., and Chesney, MS. 1972. Effect of salt con-
proved binding strength due to greater extraction of salt soluble tent and flakin temperature on flaked, formed and sectioned meat prod-
ucts. J. Anim. Eci. 35: 198. (abstr.).
proteins. Restructured steaks made with different binders (CM, Means, W.J. and Schmidt, G.R. 1986. Algin/calcium gel as a raw and cooked
WG, SI, or SU) had similar tensile strength values to those binder in structured beef steaks. J. Food Sci. 51: 60.
Means, W.J., Clarke, A.D., Sofas, J.N., and Schmidt, G.R. 1987. Binding,
with CA except for restructured steaks with WP. sensory and storage properties of algin/calcium structured beef steaks.
J. Food Sci. 52: 252.
Miller, M.F., Davis, G.W. Seideman, SC., Wheeler, T.L., and Ramsey, C.B.
1986. Extending beef bullock restructured steaks with soy protein, wheat
Cooking loss gluten or mechanically separated beef. J. Food Sci. 51: 1169.
Parks, L.L. and Carpenter, J.A. 1987. Functionality of six nonmeat pro-
Results for cooking loss and dimensional changes for steaks teins in meat systems. J. Food Sci. 52: 271.
Pearson, A.M. and Wolzak, AM. 1982. Salt-its use in animal products-
are presented in Table 5. IR steaks and restructured steaks A human health dilemma. J. Anim. Sci. 54: 1263.
produced with CA or SP had lower P ~0.05) cooking loss than Proteous, J.D. and Quinn, J.R. 1979. Functional property measurement of
the other restructured steaks except for steaks with WP. This y;,xFoy of meat and extender protems. Can. Inst. Food Sci. Technol.
observation for steaks made with CA was compatible with the SAS. 1982. SAS Users Guide: Statistics. SAS Institute Inc., Gary, NC.
work of Clarke et al. (1988) who found reduced cook loss in Schmidt, G.R. and Trout, G.R. 1982. Chemistry of, meat binding. Proc.
Innrn;;,onal Symposium Meat Sm. Technol., Univ. of Nebraska, Lm-
restructured beef due to a combination of slightly elevated pH
and inhibition of moisture migration by CA. Trout and Schmidt Schneil, H.G., Vadehra, D.V., and Baker, R.C. 1970. Mechanism of binding
chunks of meat. 1. Effect of physical and chemical treatments. Canadian
(1984) also reported that the addition of salt and phosphate Inst. Food Technol. J. 3: 44.
increased cooking yield due to an increase in ionic strength Seideman, SC., Durland, P.R., Quenser, N.M., and Carlson, C.W. 1982.
and pH. Steaks made with WI had similar (P>O.O5) cooking Effect of added wheat gluten and mixing time on physical and sensory
properties of spent fowl restructured steaks. J. Food Protect. 45: 297.
losses to IR steaks and SP steaks. No differences (P>O.O5) Siegel, D.G., Church, K.E., and Schmidt, G.R. 1979. Gel structure of non-
were observed for cooking loss among steaks from treatments T2e;t, proteins as related to their ability to meat pieces. J. Food Sci. 44:
with binders such as CM, WG, SI or SU. Steel, R.G. and Torrie, J.H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics.
The diameter of all steaks decreasedafter cooking and ranged McGraw-Hill Book Co., New York.
Terrell, R.N., Crenwelge,, C.H., Dutson, T.R., and Smith, G.C. 1982. A
from 12.6 to 17.3%. However, these decreases were not af- technique to measure binding properties of nonmeat proteins in muscle-
fected (P>O.O5) by the binders. Thickness of all steaks de- juncture formation. J. Food Sci. 47: 711.
creased after cooking except those produced with SP, which Tobian, L. 1979. The relationship of salt to hypertension. Amer. J. Clin.
Nutr. 32: 2739.
increased in thickness by 8.7%. There were no other differ- Trout, G.R. and Schmidt, G.R. 1984. Effect of phosphate type and concen-
ences (P>O.O5) for thickness changes of steaks among other tration, salt level and method of preparation on binding in restructured
beef rolls. J. Food Sci. 49: 687.
treatments. Trout, G.R. and Schmidt, G.R. 1987. Nonprotein additives. Ch. 9. In Ad-
vances in Meat Research, Vol. 3. Restructured Meat and Poult Products,
A.M.-Pearson and T.R. Dutson (Ed.). Van Nostrand ReinhoY d Co. Inc.,
New York.
CONCLUSIONS Trout, G.R. and Chen, C.M. 1989. Evaluation ofvarious binders in restruc-
tured beef steaks: Effect on color, color stability and texture refile.
Results indicate several binders have potential use in the man- Presented at 49th Annual Meeting of the Inst. of Food Techno Pomsts,
Chicago, IL.
ufacture of low-salt restructured beef steaks. Those with CA Turner, R.H., Jones, P.N., and Macfarlane, J.J. 1979. Binding of meat
or CM had superior binding ability and moisture retention, as pieces: An investigation of the use of myosin-containing extract from
pre- and post-rigor bovine muscle as meat binding agents. J. Food Sci.
determined by sensory texture profile evaluation, instrumental 44: 1443.
analysis and tensile strength measurements. SU could be as MS received 8/29/90; revised 5/12/91; accepted 6/16/91.
good a binder as CM or CA. However, steaks made with SU
had greater cooking losses. The use of WP, WG, or SI as
binders in restructured beef steaks may detrimentally affect PublicationNo. 4.902635P.
flavor. CA, CM, or SU could be potential binders in low-salt This work was supportedin part by a grant from the National Live Stock & Meat
restructured beef steaks without notably detrimental effects of Board. CMC acknowledgesassistanceof Dr. D.L. Huffman and Mr. W.R. Egbert in
editing of this manuscript.
quality.

1460-JOURNAL OF FOOD SCIENCE-Volume 56, No. 6, 1991