1. What’s your beef?
The Effects of Breadcrumb
Substitutions for Ground
Beef in Hamburgers Related
to Lysinuric Protein
Intolerance
Maria Wendt
Fall 2014
Experimental Foods

2. Introduction
 What is Lysnuric protein intolerance?
 Autosomal recessive trait
 Unable to metabolize arginine, lysine, and
orthinine.
 Begins when weaned
 Severe complications can be fatal

3. Why this disease
and recipe?
 Topic chosen with
family help
 Common food
among consumers
 Lack of knowledge

4. INDEPENDENT
VARIABLES
No breadcrumbs
(control)
25% breadcrumbs
50% breadcrumbs
75% breadcrumbs

5. Texture
1________2________3________4________5
Dense Semi dense Airy
Color
1________2________3________4________5
Light Brown Brown Dark brown
Taste
1________2________3________4________5
Not salty Semi salty Very salty
Characteristic 772 464 117 213
Texture a
Color b
Taste c
Dependent
Variables

6. Dependent Variables
 Volumeter
 Penetrometer

7. Hypotheses
 1) By substituting 75% breadcrumbs for ground beef in
hamburgers, the saltiness will significantly change.
 2) By substituting 50%-75% breadcrumbs for ground beef in
hamburgers, the volume will significantly change.
 3) By substituting 75% breadcrumbs for ground beef in
hamburgers, the tenderness will significantly change.

8. Results & Discussion
 Judges were very accurate! Texture (p=0.927),
Color (p=0.998), and Taste (p=0.926).
 Texture: significant difference between control
and 50% breadcrumbs and 75% breadcrumbs
(p=0.000)
 -No significant difference between control and
25% breadcrumbs (p=0.590)
 Dense or airy burger?

9. Texture
Control 1.466 ----------
75% ground beef 2.398 0.59
50% ground beef 4.066 .000
25%ground beef 4 .000
75%-50% ---------- .040
75%-25% ---------- .001

10. Results & Discussion
 Color: all variables had an equal
significant difference in color compared
to the control (p=0.000)
 Due to lack of beef available to produce
Maillard reaction
 Minimal color change- 25% breadcrumbs

11. Color
Control 5 ----------
75% ground beef 3.334 .000
50% ground beef 2.47 .000
25%ground beef 1.532 .000
75%-50% ---------- .011
75%-25% ---------- .000
50%-25% ---------- .006

12. Results & Discussion
 Taste: no significant difference from
control to burgers made with 25%
breadcrumbs (p=0.974) or 50%
breadcrumbs (p=0.358)
 Control to 75% breadcrumbs showed a
significant difference (p=0.000)
 By substituting 75% breadcrumbs for
ground beef in hamburgers, the saltiness
will significantly change.
 -p=0.000  accepted

13. Taste
Control 3.932 ------------
75% ground beef 4.066 .974
50% ground beef 3.398 .358
25%ground beef 2.2 .000
75%-25% ---------- .000
50%-25% ---------- .007

14. Results: obj.
 Volume: By substituting 50%-75%
breadcrumbs for ground beef in
hamburgers, the volume will significantly
change.
 Rejected
 Tenderness: By substituting 75%
breadcrumbs for ground beef in
hamburgers, the tenderness will significantly
change.
 Rejected

16. Limitations
 Lack of participants
 Availability of equipment
 Time constraints
 Budget
 Outdated ovens
 Experimenters and panelists in the same
room
 Hard to find articles

17. conclusion
 Greatest texture change:
control and 50% breadcrumbs
(p=0.000)
 Significant color change in all
variables compared to the
control: all had a p-value of
0.000
 Significant difference in taste
between control and 75%
breadcrumbs (p=0.000)
 No significant difference in
density and tenderness

18. Table 1. Nutrition Information for Each Recipe Variation*
Control 100%
ground beef
75% ground beef 50% ground beef 25% ground beef
Calories 138.75kcal 122.75kcal 149.25kcal 129.25kcal
Fat (g) 8.72g 8.84g 9.2g 5.32g
Saturated Fat
(g)
6.64g 5.06g 3.5g 1.9g
Cholesterol
(mg)
44g 33g 22g 11g
Total CHO (g) 0.56g 5.42g 10.3g 15.12g
Dietary Fiber
(g)
0.1g 0.4g 0.7g 1.00g
Sugars (g) 0.21g 0.63g 1.05g 1.45g
Protein (g) 13.6g 5.03g 5.93g 4.8g
Zinc 3.32ug 1.00ug 1.22ug 0.81g
B12 1.41ug 0.61ug 0.63ug 0.36g

19.  References
 1Sidransky, H, Verney, E. Chemical pathology of diamino acid deficiency: considerations
in relation to lysinuric protein intolerance. J Exp Path. 1985;2(1).
 2Parenti, G, Sebastio, G, Strisciuglio, et al. Lysinuric protein intolerance characterized by
bone marrow abnormalities and severe clinical course. J Pediatr and J Pathol. 1995:
126:246-251.
 3Sebastio, G, Sperandeo, MP, Andria G. Lysinuric protein intolerance: Reviewing
concepts on a multisystem disease. Am J Med Genet Part C. 2011;157: 54-62.
 4Pagon, RA, Adam, MP, Ardinger HH, et al. Lysinuric protein intolerance. NLM Gatew.
Seattle (WA); 1993-2014.
 5McWilliams, M. Foods experimental perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice Hall; 2012: 69-89.
 6McWilliams, M. Foods experimental perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice Hall; 2012: 45- 67.
 7McWilliams, M. Foods experimental perspectives. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Prentice
 Hall; 2012: 93-103.
 application. J Food Eng. 2012: 852-861.
 9Sloan, AE. Consumers go with the grain. Dec. 2011: 18.
 10Sluimer, P. Principles of breadmaking: functionality of raw materials and process steps.
St. Paul, Minnesota: American Association on Cereal Chemists; 2005.
 11Wang, S. Karrech, A, Lieb, K, Bell, S. Digital bread crumb: creation and application. J of
Food Eng.116 (2013); 852-861.
 12McNeill, S, Lofgren, P, Van Elswyk, M. The role of lean beef in healthful dietary patterns.
 Nutrition Today. 2011.
 13Shrestha, A, Cornforth, D, Nummer, BA. Process optimization and consumer
acceptability of salted ground beef patties cooked and held hot in flavored marinade.
J Food Sci. 2010: 75; C607-C612.
 14Barber, N, Broz, C. The meat searing process: is sealing in juices fact or fiction? J of
Culinary Sci & Tech. 2011: 9:99-105.