Sharaf, S. (2009). UTILIZATION OF WHEAT PROTEINS AS A NUTRITIOUS, PRACTICAL MEAT SUBSTITUTE. Journal of Food and Dairy Sciences, 34(1), 249-256. doi: 10.21608/jfds.2009.112143
Shadia M. Sharaf. "UTILIZATION OF WHEAT PROTEINS AS A NUTRITIOUS, PRACTICAL MEAT SUBSTITUTE". Journal of Food and Dairy Sciences, 34, 1, 2009, 249-256. doi: 10.21608/jfds.2009.112143
Sharaf, S. (2009). 'UTILIZATION OF WHEAT PROTEINS AS A NUTRITIOUS, PRACTICAL MEAT SUBSTITUTE', Journal of Food and Dairy Sciences, 34(1), pp. 249-256. doi: 10.21608/jfds.2009.112143
Sharaf, S. UTILIZATION OF WHEAT PROTEINS AS A NUTRITIOUS, PRACTICAL MEAT SUBSTITUTE. Journal of Food and Dairy Sciences, 2009; 34(1): 249-256. doi: 10.21608/jfds.2009.112143
UTILIZATION OF WHEAT PROTEINS AS A NUTRITIOUS, PRACTICAL MEAT SUBSTITUTE
A low meat intake, especially red meat is recommended to avoid the risk of cancer, obesity and metabolic syndrome. So many of people move away a meat centered diet, but it is sometimes difficult to find interesting substitutes for meat.
In this study wheat gluten (seitan) and sweet lupine (ground whole seeds after socking in water for 12h. and boiling in water for 30 min.) were used as meat substitute for processing beefburger products.
Therefore, the following burger products were manufactured: Beefburger prepared with 100% beef (control ); A sample prepared with 75% wheat gluten +25% sweet lupine; B sample prepared with 50% wheat gluten +50% sweet lupine; C sample prepared with 50%wheat gluten +25%sweet lupine +25% beef and D sample prepared with 50% wheat gluten +50% beef. These products immediately evaluated after processing.
Some chemical (moisture, fat, protein, ash, total carbohydrates and energy value) and cooking properties (cooking yield, cooking loss and shrinkage) were determined. Moreover, sensory evaluation and testing the significance among all burger products were carried out. In addition, the economic cost for each product was calculated.
Generally, the results indicated that all treatments A, B, C and D recorded lower moisture, fat, ash and higher protein content compared with control sample. Moreover, all treatments A, B, C, and D recorded higher cooking yield and lower cooking loss and shrinkage as well as lower cost when compared with the control sample. According to the results of sensory evaluation the treatment D (prepared with 50% seitan +50% beef) was the best among all the burger products followed by control sample, and there were nonsignificant differences (either at significant level of 0.05 or 0.01) between B and control sample or between control and C sample. Therefore, treatment B and C are suggested to produce a healthy beefburger with high quality and low cost.
View on SCiNiTO
Top