Cited by 70Meat and Animal Product QualitySodium Intake and HealthFood Nutrient Composition and Product Development

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 44 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Sodium reduction strategies through use of meat extenders (white button mushrooms vs. textured soy) in beef patties

Open access

Abstract

Lowering the sodium content in meat products, particularly in beef patties, can be challenging because sodium plays many functional roles in these products. Meat extenders can contribute to lower sodium content by imparting complementary flavors while reducing caloric and sodium content. A systematic comparison of two meat extenders, namely mushrooms and textured soy (TSP) in terms of physical and sensory characteristics, is presented herein. The physical properties of the samples suggested that the use of mushroom and TSP extender would perform statistically similar to an all‐meat control depending on the level of substitution. Hedonic sensory analysis showed meat extension using mushrooms yielded liking scores more similar to the all‐meat formulations than TSP in reduced sodium applications. The results of this research suggest that mushrooms have the potential to be successfully incorporated into reduced sodium meat products to provide a healthier product.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/fsn3.824

Cites

41 of 41 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Figures

Figure 1 Effect of meat extender type (mushroom or textured soy) and concentration on (a) moisture content and (b) moisture retention. Note: The black circle corresponds to the all‐meat control (0% extender). Error bars presented are the calculated standard deviations within each treatment. Data points with an *indicate a significant difference from the control (Dunnett, p = 0.05)
Figure 1 Effect of meat extender type (mushroom or textured soy) and concentration on (a) moisture content and (b) moisture retention. Note: The black circle corresponds to the all‐meat control (0% extender). Error bars presented are the calculated standard deviations within each treatment. Data points with an *indicate a significant difference from the control (Dunnett, p = 0.05)CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 2 Effect of meat extender type (mushroom or textured soy) and concentration on cook yield. Note: The black circle corresponds to the all‐meat control (0% extender). Error bars presented are the calculated standard deviations within each treatment. Data points with an *indicate a significant difference from the control (Dunnett, p = 0.05)
Figure 2 Effect of meat extender type (mushroom or textured soy) and concentration on cook yield. Note: The black circle corresponds to the all‐meat control (0% extender). Error bars presented are the calculated standard deviations within each treatment. Data points with an *indicate a significant difference from the control (Dunnett, p = 0.05)CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 3 Effect of meat extender type (mushroom or textured soy) and concentration on yellow color (b*). Note: The black circle corresponds to the all‐meat control (0% extender). Error bars presented are the calculated standard deviations within each treatment. Data points with an *indicate a significant difference from the control (Dunnett, p = 0.05)
Figure 3 Effect of meat extender type (mushroom or textured soy) and concentration on yellow color (b*). Note: The black circle corresponds to the all‐meat control (0% extender). Error bars presented are the calculated standard deviations within each treatment. Data points with an *indicate a significant difference from the control (Dunnett, p = 0.05)CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 4 Effect of meat extender type (mushroom or textured soy) and concentration on (a) apparent stress at 50% deformation and (b) residual apparent stress. Note: The black circle corresponds to the all‐meat control (0% extender). Error bars presented are the calculated standard deviations within each treatment. Data points with an *indicate a significant difference from the control (Dunnett, p = 0.05)
Figure 4 Effect of meat extender type (mushroom or textured soy) and concentration on (a) apparent stress at 50% deformation and (b) residual apparent stress. Note: The black circle corresponds to the all‐meat control (0% extender). Error bars presented are the calculated standard deviations within each treatment. Data points with an *indicate a significant difference from the control (Dunnett, p = 0.05)CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 5 Effect of meat extender type (mushroom or textured soy) and concentration on sodium content. Note: The black circle corresponds to the all‐meat control (0% extender). Error bars presented are the calculated standard deviations within each treatment. Data points with an *indicate a significant difference from the control (Dunnett, p = 0.05)
Figure 5 Effect of meat extender type (mushroom or textured soy) and concentration on sodium content. Note: The black circle corresponds to the all‐meat control (0% extender). Error bars presented are the calculated standard deviations within each treatment. Data points with an *indicate a significant difference from the control (Dunnett, p = 0.05)CC BY · PubMed Central
Figure 6 Effect of meat extender type and concentration on fat content. Note: The black circle corresponds to the all‐meat control (0% extender). Error bars presented are the calculated standard deviations within each treatment. Data points with an *indicate a significant difference from the control (Dunnett, p = 0.05)
Figure 6 Effect of meat extender type and concentration on fat content. Note: The black circle corresponds to the all‐meat control (0% extender). Error bars presented are the calculated standard deviations within each treatment. Data points with an *indicate a significant difference from the control (Dunnett, p = 0.05)CC BY · PubMed Central

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 44 references

Research works printed but not linked: 8

  1. Angus F., 2005, Salt in processed foods: collaborative research project, Leatherhead Food International
  2. Barbosa C.C., 2015, Sensory profile of beef beef with reduced sodium content, Acta Scientarium, 37, 301
  3. Bobe I.U., 2011, Proceedings of the 11th International congress on engineering and food, 687e688
  4. Campbell JF. (1979).Binding properties of meat blends effects of salt type blending time and post‐blending storage. Ph.D. Thesis Michigan State University.
  5. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, 2016, Leading causes of death
  6. Lutz G.D.(2005).Personal communication: Alberger salt improves protein functionality in meat blends: Technical Bulletin.
  7. Madril M. T., 1985, Antimicrobial and functional effects of six polyphosphates in reduced NaCl comminuted meat products, Lebensmittel Wissenschaft und Technologie, 18, 316
  8. U.S. Department of Agriculture, 2007, Keep food safe: Food safety basics, 2010

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Wong, K. M., Corradini, M. G., Autio, W., & Kinchla, A. J.
Affiliations
University of Massachusetts Amherst (US)
Corresponding author
Kinchla, Amanda J.
Venue
Food Science & Nutrition
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-01-21
Volume
7
Issue
2
Pages
506-518
ISSN
2048-7177 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2914747199
Cited by
70
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2
FWCI
5.70
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Food Science & Nutrition (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Informationszentrum Lebenswissenschaften (ZB MED) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
  • National Institute of Food and Agriculture
  • U.S. Department of Agriculture
  • University of Massachusetts (MAS00493)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Meat and Animal Product Quality
  • Health Sciences › Nursing › Nutrition and Dietetics › Sodium Intake and Health
  • Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Food Nutrient Composition and Product Development
Keywords
sodium reduction, meat extender, Agaricus bisporus, textured soy protein, beef patties, meat product formulation, sensory evaluation, physical properties, low-sodium meat products

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review