GROUND turkey has been introduced into

Palatability of Ground and Beef Containing Soy R. E. BALDWIN, B. M. KORSCHGEN, J. M. VANDEPOPULIERE AND W. D. RUSSELL Department of Food Science and Nutrition, and Department of Poultry Husbandry, University of Missouri-Columbia, Columbia, Missouri 6 (Received for publication October 8, 974) ABSTRACT A sensory panel indicated no significant difference in flavor between the controls and ground turkey or beef patties containing 0% textured soy protein (TSP). Both of these products were rated acceptable, whereas patties containing and 30% TSP ranked just below acceptable on the rating scale. Findings for aroma were similar to those for flavor except that there was a difference between the control and the turkey patties containing 0% TSP. All turkey and beef products were acceptable in juiciness although turkey patties containing TSP were significantly less juicy than the control. As much as 40% TSP was substituted for ground turkey in sweet-sour and chow mein entrees without significantly lowering mean scores for aroma, flavor, and general acceptability. However, for turkey loaf, significant differences in aroma and general acceptability were noted between control samples and those containing 40% TSP. This difference also was detected in flavor of turkey with dressing casserole. INTRODUCTION GROUND turkey has been introduced into the retail food market in some areas. Its future depends on promotion and use. The light color, which is apparent even after frying, is objectionable to some consumers, but there is an appeal due to the high protein: low fat ratio (Vandepopuliere, 973). This ratio is approximately 2% protein:4% fat for raw dark meat and after cooking the ratio is 30:8 (Watt and Merrill, 963; Scott, 96). Textured soy protein (TSP) has been improved so that it is bland in taste and exhibits none of the characteristic aftertaste of the early soy products (Goldschmiedt, 973). Thus, the question arises as to its compatibility with poultry meats. TSP gained wide acceptance after fortified vegetable protein was approved for use in combination with ground beef in Type A school lunches (U.S.D.A., 97). An additional impetus to its acceptance has been the high cost of meat and the availability of hamburger combined with % TSP (imitation hamburger) on the retail market. Therefore, this study was un-. Contribution from the Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station, Journal Series No. 733. POULTRY SCIENCE 4: 02-06, 97 dertaken to evaluate the palatability of ground turkey or of ground beef combined with TSP. PROCEDURE Part I. Ground dark turkey meat (4.7% fat) was obtained from Ralston Purina Co. (California, Missouri 608). This was combined with rehydrated unflavored TSP (Bontrae Crumbles, General Mills, Inc., Minneapolis, Minnesota 427) at 0 (control), 0,, and 30% replacement levels. TSP was rehydrated at a ratio of part TSP to 2 parts tap water. Ninety g. patties were prepared with each level of TSP replacement, and were vacuum packaged in polyethylene-mylar pouches and frozen ( 8 ± 3 C, maximum time one month). Ground beef was purchased from a retail market and was prepared and handled in the same manner as the ground turkey. Ground beef and ground turkey were evaluated on separate days. Patties were thawed (2 C, 48 hr.) prior to preparation for sensory evaluation. Each thawed pattie was cooked 3 minutes per side in electric skillets with a surface temperature of 9 C. Treatments (0, 0,, and 30% TSP) were randomly assigned to order of preparation and serving for each panel. 02

GROUND TURKEY, BEEF AND SOY 03 Cooked patties were cut into six wedges, dropped into preheated 0-ml. beakers, capped with aluminum foil, and served, one at a time, to each judge. To prevent first sample bias, a representative sample was served at the beginning of each panel. Scores for these samples were not included in the statistical analyses. Sensory evaluations of aroma and flavor were made on a scale of, undesirable, to, desirable. Juiciness was scored on a scale of the same magnitude representing gradations from dry to juicy. Evaluations were conducted in a specially designed taste panel room. Six judges (students and staff) were seated in individual booths for each session, and sufficient panels were conducted to obtain a minimum of 29 evaluations. Analyses of variance were applied to the Ingredients data. Duncan's (9) new multiple range test was used to locate significant (P < 0.0) differences among means. Part 2. This phase of the research was conducted with ground turkey only. The ground turkey (Borron Processor, Inc., Shelbina, Missouri 63468) was composed of meat from deboned drumsticks and tails. Total fat content was 2.09%. Unfavored TSP (TVP (R), Archer Daniels Midland Co., Decatur, Illinois 6) was rehydrated at the ratio of 38% TSP to 62% tap water. The rehydrated TSP was used to replace 0,,30, and 40% ground turkey in the following four entrees: sweet-sour turkey, turkey chow mein, turkey loaf, and turkey with dressing casserole. Ingredients for each entree are listed in Table. Specific directions for TABLE. Ingredients for ground turkey entrees Sweetsour turkey chow mein loaf dressing casserole 2 Ground turkey or turkey + TSP (g.) Bread cubes (g.) 68 0 227 Bread dressing mix 3 (g.) Catsup (g.) 40 Celery, chopped (g.) 30 Chinese vegetables, canned (g.) Corn starch (g.) Egg (g.) Green pepper strips (g.) Horseradish (g.) Milk, evaporated (g.) Mustard, dry (g.) 2 80 2 0 6 2 Onion, chopped (g.) Pineapple juice (ml.) Pineapple tidbits (g.) Salt (g.) 80 0 8 9 Shortening (g.) Sugar, brown (g.) Sugar, granulated (g.) Soy sauce (g.) Vinegar (ml.) Water (ml.) 3 80 30 40 60 'Served over chow mein noodles. Sauce for casserole: 268 g. sauce composed of condensed chicken broth, water, egg, flour, margarine, nonfat dry milk. 'Pepperidge Farm, Inc., Norwalk, CT 0682.

04 BALDWIN, KORSCHGEN, VANDEPOPULIERE AND RUSSELL preparing the products were reported by Korschgen et al. (974). Sensory evaluations were conducted as described for Part. Recipes were prepared in triplicate to provide sufficient amounts for a minimum of 37 judgments each. Two entrees were tested each session, and order of serving was alternated from session to session. For each entree, samples containing different levels of TSP were randomly assigned to order of serving. Sample size for each judge was sufficient to be representative of all components of the entree. Scoring was the same as that described for Part except for the attribute of juiciness which was replaced by a to scale for general acceptability. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION Part. For the attribute of aroma, mean panel scores indicated that control (0% TSP) turkey and beef patties and those containing 0% TSP were acceptable. However, a significant difference was found between mean panel scores for control (0% TSP) turkey patties and those containing 0% TSP, which was not apparent for beef patties. Meat of both species combined with and 30% TSP was rated just below the acceptable level for aroma as designated by the midpoint on the rating scale, and no significant difference was indicated between these treatments. The panel scores for aroma for patties with these levels of TSP were lower (P < 0.0) than for the patties containing zero or 0% TSP for the respective species (Fig. ). In flavor, trends were similar for turkey and beef patties, and no difference was indicated between the control (0% TSP) and patties containing 0% TSP nor between those containing and 30% TSP (Fig. ). These findings suggest that responses may have been due to the predominance of turkey or beef flavor for the control and 0% levels of TSP, and that the TSP may have exerted. AROMA - LU 4 ' EC O W 3 z. - c c < hi LU Si w A- GC O CJ z < UJ 22 urn mi s h \ i 0 _u_i 0 30 TURKEY PATTIES 0 0 30 0 0 30 TEXTURED SOY PROTEIN (%) FIG.. Mean (n > 29) sensory scores for turkey and beef patties containing TSP. (Where letters within a graph differ, means differ significantly, P < 0.0.) a greater influence on responses when it was used at and 30% levels. As for the attribute of aroma, the flavor of meat of both species was rated in the acceptable range for the control (0% TSP) and 0% level of TSP, whereas the means for products containing and 30% TSP were just below midpoint on the rating scale (Fig. ). All products were rated acceptable in juiciness, although the control turkey patties were significantly more juicy than the patties containing TSP. This difference was not indicated for beef patties (Fig. ). There is no adequate explanation for this lack of agreement in findings between the two species of meat. Limited observations indicated that cooking losses of turkey patties decreased as levels of TSP increased. Mean (n = 4) cooking losses were 30, 26, 23, and % respectively, for turkey patties containing 0, 0,, or 30% TSP. Further studies are planned to illucidate the relationship between cooking losses and sensory ratings of juiciness.

GROUND TURKEY, BEEF AND SOY 0 Part 2. Since there were no significant differences in flavor between meat patties containing 0 and 0% TSP, 0 (control),, 30, and 40% TSP replacement levels for ground turkey were chosen for the four entrees. All mean scores were above the midpoint on the rating scale except for the flavor (mean 2.9) and general acceptability (mean 2.8) for the turkey with dressing casserole containing 40% TSP substituted for turkey (Fig. 2, 3). There were no significant differences among mean panel scores for all attributes of sweet-sour turkey and turkey chow mein (Fig. 2). Likewise, there were no significant differences among mean scores for the flavor of turkey loaf or for the aroma of a turkey with dressing casserole (Fig. 3). However, the control turkey loaves were more acceptable (P < 0.0) in aroma than those containing TSP, which did not differ from each other. Also, mean scores for both flavor and general acceptability of the control turkey with dressing casserole and the general acceptability of the control turkey loaf were higher i: i, SWEET SOUR TURKEY AROMA urn in TURKEY CHOW MEIN 0 30 40 0 30 40 TEXTURED SOY PROTEIN (%) GENERAL ACCEPTABILITY ground turkey without detrimental effects on 0 30 40 FIG. 2. Mean (n > 37) sensory scores for sweetsour turkey and turkey chow mein containing TSP. (No significant differences among means.) s; I. AROMA TURKEY LOAF GENERAL ACCEPTABILITY III TURKEY AND DRESSING CASSEROLE A A, " ^ 3 \\ k A I AB AB 0 30 40 0 30 40 TEXTURED SOY PROTEIN {%) III AB w \ i! I -U 4 A 0 30 40 FIG. 3. Mean (n > 37) sensory scores for turkey loaf and turkey with dressing casserole containing TSP. (Where letters within a graph differ, means differ significantly, P < 0.0.) (P < 0.0) than those for the products containing 40% TSP. Mean panel scores for these attributes for the latter products with and 30% levels of TSP replacement were not significantly different from each other nor were they different from the control (0% TSP) or the 40% TSP loaves (Fig. 3). Thus, with certain ingredient combinations, high levels of TSP can be combined with palatability. Entrees in which no significant flavor differences were apparent included generous amounts of different combinations of such ingredients as green pepper, vinegar, pineapple, soy sauce, or horseradish. In contrast, flavor differences were noted among treatments for turkey with dressing casserole which contained only a small amount of onion as the distinctive seasoning (Table ). Possibly with all of these products, palatability could have been enhanced by the use of flavored rather than unflavored TSP.

06 BALDWIN, KORSCHGEN, VANDEPOPULIERE AND RUSSELL TSP reduced cooking losses in the turkey loaves, as, according to Carlin and Nielson (974), it did for beef loaves. Cooking losses for control turkey loaves averaged 9%. Replacement of turkey with, 30, and 40% TSP resulted in mean cooking losses of 8,, and %, respectively. Cooking losses are important considerations in relation to yield in terms of size of number of servings. REFERENCES Carlin, F., and L. M. Nielson, 974. Use of soy concentrate in fresh and frozen meat loaves. The National Provisioner, 70(4): 8-27. ever such procedures may be justified in the interest of conserving a rare species." Single copies of the Guide ordered from the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 402, cost 70 cents each. MERCK NOTES Dr. Hilmer L. Jones has been named General Manager of the Animal Health and Feed Products Area of the Merck Chemical Division, Merck & Co., Inc. His appointment was made in conjunction with the announcement that John T. Riley who was Merck Chemical Division Vice President for Animal Health and Feed Products, has been named President of Kelco Company. Jones joined Merck in 969 as Director of Technical Services for the Animal Health and Feed Products Area, a position he held until he assumed the post of General Manager. He previously had served in executive positions in the agricultural and veterinary fields with Pfizer, Inc. Dr. L. M. Howell has been promoted to Director of Technical Services, Animal Health and Feed Products, Merck Chemical Division, Merck & Co., Inc. Dr. Howell, a veterinarian, will be responsible for technical guidance of the Animal Health and Feed Products and Professional Veterinary Products Areas NEWS AND NOTES (Continued from page 093) Duncan, D. B., 9. New multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics, : -42. Goldschmiedt, H., 973. Meat substitutes. Food Trade Review, 43(9): 26. Korschgen, B., R. Baldwin, W. Russell and J. Vandepopuliere, 974. Ground turkey meat. Missouri Extension Folder 99. University of Missouri- Columbia. Scott, M. L., 96. Composition of turkey meat. J. Am. Dietet. Assoc. 32: 94-944. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 97. Food and Nutrition Service Notice 29. Vandepopuliere, J. M., 973. Consumer evaluation of ground turkey meat. Presented at Meeting of National Federation, Jan. 9, St. Louis, MO. Watt, B. K., and A. L. Merrill, 963. Composition of Foods. Agriculture Handbook No. 8. U.S.D.A., Washington, DC. in relations with customers on use of the Company's products and for directing the area's technical activities related to the marketing of the products. Reporting to Dr. Howell are seven technical specialists located in various parts of the country and who service more than 00 customers and 60 Merck sales personnel. A graduate of the University of Georgia, where he also obtained his D.V.M. degree, Dr. Howell joined Merck, in 970, as a Technical Service Specialist for Southeastern United States. Before joining Merck, he served as Veterinary Poultry Pathologist in the Georgia Poultry Laboratory, a diagnostic laboratory in Oakwood, Georgia, and as a Meat Inspection Supervisor for the Georgia Department of Agriculture. He has also been in private practice. He is a member of the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Georgia Veterinary Medical Association, the American Association of Avian Pathologists, the Industrial Veterinarian Association, the Poultry Science Association, the Georgia Cattlemen's Association, and the Georgia Poultry Federation. Stephen F. Swindler has been named Regional Sales Manager, North Central Region, Animal Health and Feed Products of Merck Chemical Division. He attended Purdue University, and received a B.S. degree at Ball State University, Muncie, Indiana, majoring in biology and chemistry. Before joining Merck in 970 as a Sales Development Representative, (Continued on page 4)