414 Chapter 23
spongy, soft, mushy, crumbly, chewy, loose,
and aerated (Mikkelsen and Esguerra 1996 ;
Flores et al. 2007 ).
According to Berry (1987) , texture prob-
lems of restructured meats may be related to
excessive or insuffi cient bind, lack of unifor-
mity of texture, excessive connective tissue,
distortion of cooked product, excessive crust
formation, layering, and/or formation of
pockets inside the product during cooking.
Sheard (2002) suggested three factors might
affect the eating quality of restructured
meats: (1) the nature of the meat pieces ’ ori-
entation and composition (such as their size,
shape, surface morphology, and fi ber direc-
tion); (2) the amount and composition of the
surface protein matrix; and (3) the relative
proportion of the meat pieces to the surface
matrix. Boles and Shand (1998) determined
the effect of particle size on the acceptance
of restructured beefsteaks produced using
alginate - binding systems and found that par-
ticle size had no effect on the consumer
acceptability of the texture of the restructured
steaks. Flores et al. (2007) found no effect
of binders on the consumer acceptability
of the texture of pork restructured with
Activa TM , Fibrimex TM , or phosphates.
However, Esguerra (1994) reported that algi-
nate - bound steaks were more tender than
Pearl F - bound steaks. Farouk et al. (2005b)
also reported that consumers preferred the
tenderness of beef rolls restructured using
alginate binding system relative to Activa TM -
bound ones. Previous studies indicated that
muscle fi ber alignment in whole - tissue steaks
from different species of animals affected the
texture of the steaks measured objectively or
subjectively (Guenther 1989 ; Poste et al.
1993 ; Otremba et al. 1999 ). Results of these
studies show that cooked intact whole - tissue
meat samples sheared longitudinal/parallel to
the direction of meat fi ber or masticated with
the grain were more tender (lower shearforce
values) than those sheared tranverse/perpen-
dicular to fi ber direction or masticated across
the grain. Purslow and his associates (Purslowthe least preferred raw steak with mixed fi ber
alignment include “ too patchy, ” “ looks like
a mosaic, ” “ mottled appearance and chunky
looking, ” “ looks like a jigsaw, ” and “ more
obviously processed/processed looking. ”
The panelist ranking of the visual accept-
ability of the restructured steaks changed on
cooking. In cooked steaks, those with fi bers
running parallel to the cut surface of the steak
were ranked lowest compared with the per-
pendicular and mixed steaks, which did not
differ in visual appeal. The reason for the
change in the visual appeal of the parallel
steaks from being the highest ranked in the
raw state to the lowest in the cooked state is
because, in the raw state, color had more
infl uence on the decision of the panelists, as
it was more diffi cult to see the direction of
the fi bers in relation to the cut steak surface.
However, due to the shrinkage and the thick-
ening of the fi bers in the cooked steaks, the
effect of the fi ber alignment became more
obvious and the parallel steaks lost their nat-
ural - look appeal. The comments of the panel-
ists regarding the cooked parallel steaks
include “ the least natural, ” “ looked patch-
work, ” “ looks very restructured, ” “ slightly
strange, ” or “ lots of crossed grain bits ” (see
Fig. 23.5 ).
Other visual appearance issues may arise
from the poor dispersion of binders during
restructuring. Esguerra (1994) and Mikkelsen
and Esguerra (1996) restructured beef steaks
and cubes using alginate and found that
undissolved encapsulated acid appeared as
small white spots in the steaks, and poorly
dispersed alginate appeared as red gel spots
in raw chilled or thawed restructured cubes.
Texture/Tenderness
The texture of restructured whole - tissue
steaks should simulate that of a real steak;
otherwise, they will be rejected by the con-
sumer. Some of the common terminologies
used by consumers to describe texture prob-
lems in restructured meats include rubbery,