Acceptability of culinary preparations based on different ground beef grades

.


INTRODUCTION
Industry and retail market from several countries establish legal or informal quality standards to meat and meat products, in which classification and grading schemes for beef involves pricing, market and traders requirements and satisfaction of consumers.Recent Meat Standards Australia (MSA) research in Australia, Korea, Ireland, USA, Japan and South Africa showed that consumers across diverse cultures and nationalities have a *Corresponding author.E-mail: carlos.garcia@ufpr.br.
Author(s) agree that this article remain permanently open access under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License 4.0 International License remarkably similar view of beef eating quality (Polkinghorne and Thompson, 2010).
Ground Beef is defined as "chopped fresh and/or frozen beef with or without seasoning and without the addition of beef fat as such, shall not contain more than 30% fat, and shall not contain added water, phosphates, binders, or extenders" (FSIS, 2015).However, in Brazil there are different commercial kinds of ground meat, whose retailers use expressions like "special", "prime" and "second" as its own quality grades, based on cut composition used as raw material (Grácia et al., 2010).
Factors like breed, age, cut composition and processing conditions impacts sensorial acceptance of meat derivatives (Abrahão et al., 2008).Work from Legako et al. (2015) showed that taste and juiciness of beef are more influenced by the cut origin than maturation stages.Moreover, Meinert et al. (2007) evidenced the positive effect over frying temperature on taste and odor of pork.The present work aims to evaluate the effect of culinary preparations based on different ground beef grades over composition and acceptability.

Characterization of commercial ground beef presentations
Eleven establishments located in Curitiba, Paraná State, Brazil were evaluated as way of ground beef commercialization.Once the most frequent standards were identified as special (SPE), prime (PRI) and second (SEC), 300 g, in triplicate, of each commercial ground beef presentations were acquired in five retail shops and assessed for chemical composition.

Elaboration of culinary preparations utilizing ground meat with different composition grades
Culinary preparations were developed in a foodservice unit located in Federal University of Paraná, Brazil, with three experimental ground beef grades (SPE, PRI and SEC), similar to previously observed for commercial samples, processed.The three different compositions of ground meat were elaborated from the following deboned beef cuts: SPE (Vastus lateralis muscle removed from apparent fat and connective tissue); PRI (Semimembranosus, Adductor femoris and muscles Gracilis partially removed from same tissues); SEC (Subscapularis, Supraspinatus, Infraspinatus and Triceps Brachii without removal of any tissues).All cuts were minced (CAF, Brazil) with 4.7 mm and 3.1 mm plates and evaluated for chemical composition.
Three cooking methods were chosen for the culinary preparations: meat sauce (braise), meatloaf (roast) and hamburger patty (fry).Each preparation was formulated with 100 g from all three ground beef grades (SPE, PRI and SEC) and applied individually.Additionally to meat, all preparations had the following ingredients: chopped onions (10 g); parsley (0.5 g); garlic (0.2 g) and salt (0.7 g).Soybean oil (2 ml); chopped tomatoes (10 g) and powder beef stock (0.25 g) were used only in meat sauce.For meatloaf and hamburger patty, besides the cited ingredients, were also used eggs (5 g); wheat flour (10 g) and breadcrumbs (10 g).
Braising meat sauce was performed by mixing ingredients with raw meat, followed by heating for 25 min until internal temperature of 97°C.To the roasting process, samples were shaped in meatballs and put in oven (RATIONAL 40Gns, United Kingdom) for 17 min, until internal temperature reached 90°C.The frying procedure was realized with immersion of the hamburger patties in soybean oil at 180°C for 8 min (internal temperature of 87°C).

Proximate analysis
Analyses were performed on the commercial, experimental ground meat samples and culinary preparations.Moisture, lipid and as content were determined in triplicate (AOAC, 1995).Carbohydrates were obtained from the difference between 100 g of food and sum of the other components.The total collagen content was determined by measuring hydroxyproline (IAL, 2008), and proportion of collagen related to protein estimated by dividing collagen mean values by protein mean values and multiplied by 100 (Della Torre and Beraquet, 2005).All analyses were performed in triplicate.Caloric value (kcal) was estimated on a basis of 9 kcal/g for fat, 4.0 kcal/g for protein and 4 kcal/g for carbohydrates (Cuppari, 2005).

Sensorial analysis of culinary preparations
Culinary preparations were assessed by a 50-member untrained panel.The panel was randomly selected from users of the university foodservice.Were used 9-point hedonic scale and preference by ranking test, in which panelists chose between grades 1 (least preferred) to 4 (most preferred) (Meilgaard et al., 1999).

Statistical analysis
Differences among the means were compared using Tukey's multiple range test using software R with significance level at 0.05.Sensorial data were analyzed with Newell and McFarlane table and level of 0.05 was chosen (IAL, 2008).

Chemical characterization of commercial ground beef presentations
All of the 11 establishments evaluated had a few grade options of ground meat to distinguish their products.The most frequent way (5 out of 11 establishments) from retailers to show difference in their minced meat quality was a division in 3 grades: special (SPE); prime (PRI) and second (SEC).The different levels of quality observed on commercialization of beef indicated that when there is not an official designation, retailers offer products making their own quality standards.These results corroborate with early works that identified the use of quality grading based on regional particularities (Polkinghorne and Thompson, 2010).
Variations in meat composition for both commercial grades and retailers (Table 1) evidenced lack of standard in processing.Fat content had the wider variation between all parameters; one of the establishments (A) presented for SEC meat 15-fold more lipid than SPE minced meats showed collagen increase by the order SPE<PRI<SEC, with means of 1.30, 2.82 and 3.21%, respectively.The values were within range observed for Della Torre and Beraquet (2005) who reported collagen concentrations between 1.0 to 4.9%, according to the commercial beef cut.Proportion of collagen related to protein also had an increase by the order SPE(5.82%)<PRI(13.33%)<SEG(16.14%).In one of the establishments (B), collagen proportion in SEC meat reached 25% of total protein.The increase of collagen content in SEC samples shows that retail also relate concentration of this protein to lower quality of ground meat.Ash values also varied among commercial grades and establishments, oscillating from 1.13% (SPE) to 0.89% (SEC) and were higher as the protein concentration increased (Table 1).These results were similar to previous works with beef cuts, alike Rhomboideus (Pedrão et al., 2009), Serratus ventralis cervicis and Brachiocephalicus (Marques, 2007), which showed average ash content of 1.03 and 0.99% respectively.

Chemical composition of culinary preparations formulated with different ground beef grades
Ground beef from all standards (SPE, PRI and SEC) elaborated in experimental scale showed (Table 2), as expected, similar composition observed on samples from retail shops (Table 1).Therefore, were able to be applied in culinary preparations.
The minced meat quality used as raw material was crucial to composition of culinary preparations.Above all formulations, the highest moisture was observed with samples processed with SPE kind.Protein content was lower in samples elaborated with SEG ground beef and alternated the most expressive means with meats SPE or PRI.Whereas, samples formulated with SEG minced meat showed higher fat content, followed by PRI and SPE products, respectively.The ash and carbohydrate levels varied according to ingredients used for the formulations (Table 2).
Caloric values, influenced by ground meat kind and cooking methods, had variations near 100%, from 141 kcal/100 g (braised meat/SPE) to 272.89 kcal/100 g (hamburger patty/SEC).Preparations showed an increase of caloric content proportional to lipid concentration in meat used as raw material.Hence, in all preparations, SPE had lower calories than PRI or SEC.Frying process used to hamburger patties elevated caloric values when compared to other cooking procedures (Table 2).
The temperatures and particularities from cooking methods also influenced composition of culinary preparations.Braised meat showed higher moisture among all preparations, especially in formulations with SPE meat.Hamburger patty composition reflected the soybean oil frying, resulting in higher lipid content, above all, in SEG preparations.Meatloaf, which was roasted in oven (dry air), showed reduced means for lipid and intermediate values for moisture in comparison to other preparations (Table 2).

Sensorial analysis
The raw material used in each culinary preparation promoted singular effect over sensorial analysis.Braised ground meat had highest acceptance on formulations with SPE or PRI, whilst SEC had lowest approval.On the opposite, meatloaf had highest acceptance when elaborated with SEC or PRI meat, and lowest scores with SPE.In hamburger patty, SEC promoted the best results, followed by SPE and PRI (Table 3).Hamburger patty had higher preference when formulated with SEC (124), followed by SPE (99) and PRI (83), the same result  observed to hedonic scale test (Table 3).The increase of lipids in SEC had positive influence over fried or roasted preparations.Fat gives rise to palatability, flavor and tenderness in meat products (Keenan et al., 2014).On the other hand, lipid content in excess on diet may be a risk factor to several diseases (Kaliora and Dedoussi, 2007).
In general, as in braised meat, moisture had impact over acceptance of meat preparations.Moisture reduces muscular fibers compaction, improves texture (Youssef et al., 2007;Rocha Garcia et al., 2013) and juiciness of the meat products (Dubost et al., 2013).However, cooking method is able to reduce its levels (Table 2), taking in account the importance of lipid content over acceptability, as seen on meatloaf and hamburger patty.Early works from Badiani et al. (2002) showed that cooking procedures interferes on final composition values, lipid oxidation, cholesterol content and cooking loss, and may influence sensorial perception from panelists.
Collagen concentration and its proportion to protein increased as the relation SEC>PRI>SPE (Table 1).Even this protein is known to provide toughness, temperatures above 75°C promotes tenderness by gelation and degradation of connective tissue (Dubost et al., 2013), and might explain why higher concentrations of collagen had no influence on acceptance of meatloaf and hamburger patty with SEC meat.Nevertheless, cannot be neglected that collagen has a limited digestibility and lack of essential aminoacids, factors which may be considered on sensorial adjustment.

Conclusion
Meat market classifies meat with higher lipid and collagen content as inferior quality.However, sensorial analysis of culinary preparations had independent relationship between the quality grades designated by retail market and were mostly influenced by adjustments from meat composition to the particularities of the processes.Moisture favors sensory approval; nevertheless, cooking procedures that lower its level may give rise to the role of fat content over meat products.
b, c) Within the same columns.means having different superscripts are significantly different (p < 0.05).SPE: Special; PRI: Prime; SEC: Second.

Table 1 .
Proximate analysis (%) of commercial and experimental ground beef.

Table 2 .
Proximate analysis of culinary preparations elaborated with different ground meat grades.: Special; PRI: Prime; SEC: Second.Carb: carbohydrates; kcal: kilocalories.The results are given as the mean ± standard deviation. SPE

Table 3 .
Hedonic scale and preference by ranking test of culinary preparations elaborated with different ground meat grades.