Benefits evaluation of quinoa flour powder instead of animal fat on quality of beef and chicken burgers

Introduction

Today, consumers are becoming more aware of the importance of consuming healthy and nutritious foods as food fulfills two functions: to satiate hunger and to ensure the maintenance of physical health. Many consumers are now making better choices and consuming less fat as part of a growing trend toward consuming healthy foods that provide the body with adequate nutrition and increase the immune system's ability to fight disease [1] . Grains are one of the best examples of foods that induce health, reduce disease risk, provide a high level of nutrition, and are very easily reformulated [2] . One of the primary sources of fat in a person's diet is meat. Meat has high levels of saturated fat, saturated fatty acids, and cholesterol, which contribute to a variety of health-related diseases, such as cancer, obesity, and heart disease. The first step to preventing each of these diseases is to reduce the consumption of saturated fat in the diet [3] . In recent times, global interest has increased in the mechanisms of partial replacement of some components of burgers, especially fats, by using some plant materials, as they are considered binding and filling materials that aim to improve the nutritional, health, and sensory qualities and reduce the cost of the final product [4] . However, the challenge facing food technologists is to preserve the nutritional, sensory, chemical, and physical properties of the product [5] . Quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Wild) is a gluten-free pseudo-grain, which contains both macro and micronutrients. The nutrient content of quinoa is high in both fibre and protein (at least 25 percent of total calories) and contains fats made largely of ω-3 and ω-6 fatty acids [6] . Due to the many nutritional benefits provided by quinoa, it has become one of the most popular cereals in the world. The grain contains significant amounts of dietary fibre, minerals, and vitamins. Unlike wheat grains, quinoa does not contain gluten and has higher amounts of the amino acids lysine and methionine [7] . Another alternative to making functional foods is to replace traditional food ingredients with quinoa. The powdered form of this grain has already been utilized in the manufacture of many food products, including baked goods, baby food, chips, and beer; however, limited research is available on using powdered quinoa in meat or meat-based products such as burgers [8] . Beef burgers are some of the most commonly eaten meat products, and they are an ideal choice for quick and easy meals [9] .

In traditional burgers, quinoa is used instead of animal fat [10] . Therefore, the purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of quinoa seed flour powder as a partial substitute for fat on the chemical, physical, and sensory properties of beef and chicken patties.

Materials and Methods

Materials utilized in this investigative experiment were procured at the food store of Mr. Ghassan Al-Zaytoun of Tikrit, Iraq (beef thigh, chicken, and lamb meat, and quinoa). All of the items were stored in the refrigerator at a temperature of 4 degrees Celsius. The meat items were cut into small pieces, while the beef and the lean chicken were then minced with an electric mincer. The minced lamb meat was processed separately from the other meat, then frozen until mixed. Patty preparation included measuring 50 g each as indicated in Table (1).

Chemical composition

Estimation of the chemical compositions of the burger examples in this study followed the AOAC [11] , method. Moisture in each of the burger examples was determined by weighing loss through moisture evaporation. Proteins were determined using the KJELDAHL method, and fats were estimated using a SOXHLET apparatus. Ash content of each burger example was estimated by incinerating (in a preweighed porcelain dish) each sample of dry hamburger in an incinerator operating at 525 °C for 6 hours.

Physical tests

The change in thickness was measured according to method [12] , The shrinkage in diameter and the percentage of weight loss during cooking were estimated according to the method [13] . The water retention capacity was calculated according to the method [14] .

Sensory Evaluation

The manufactured samples were evaluated via a panel of faculty members and graduate students who possess sufficient experience for sensory evaluation of the product. The sample evaluation was based upon the factors of color, tenderness, flavor, juiciness, and overall acceptability and was conducted in accordance with the method referenced by [15] .

Samples

Color Flavor Texture Juiciness Overall Acceptability Comments T1 T2 T3 T4

Fig 4:

Sensory evaluation score form for burger discs [16] Statistical analysis Statistical analysis was derived from the data collected through a completely randomized design (CRD). A minimum level of significance (P) for comparison of the means was conducted using Duncan's Test (P≤0.05) [17] and analyzed utilizing SAS statistical software (2010) [18] according to the following statistical model:

Results and Discussion

Chemical composition Table No. (2) illustrates how the utilization of quinoa flour powder as a partial replacement for animal fats has altered the chemical composition of beef and chicken burger preparations. Moisture percentages were highest in T 2 and T 4 preparations, 67.7% and 66.71%-lowest in T 1 and T 3 preparations, 65.49% and 65.03%. The increased moisture content in T 2 and T 4 is likely due to the properties of the filling material, which perform primarily as a medium to absorb and retain water; Therefore, studies conducted by [19,20] have similar findings. Fat content reduction of T 2 and T 4 were 13.04% and 14.31%, respectively; T 3 and T 1 increased fat content (17.4%, 16.28%, respectively). Fat content was decreased due to the replacement of saturated fat from animal sources with low-fat from a plant source-Critical! -quinoa flour powder. Similar findings to [21,22] were determined. The table also shows that there was a large increase in both protein content and total ash in T 2 and T 4 (16.06% and 16.16% for protein, 1.78% and 1.76% for total ash) but a large reduction in both of these factors for T 1 and T 1 (15.46% and 15.16% for protein, 1.24% and 1.18% for total ash). The high ash values found in both T 2 and T 4 replacement tests are indicative of the presence of minerals in quinoa, such as calcium, zinc, iron, and magnesium, where the ash content in the results is nearly identical to [23,24] .

Physical traits

The percentage changes in thickness when cooking beef and chicken burgers are shown in Table 3. T 4 and T 2 substitutions had the highest percent change in thickness from cooking (19.21% and 14.53%). T 3 and T 1 had lower percent changes in thickness from cooking (7.93% and 10.94%, respectively). The increase in the percent change in thickness from cooking in T 2 and T 4 can be attributed to quinoa flour containing fibrous structures, which allow it to retain both water and air when cooking. These results agree with [25,26] . Meanwhile, it was observed that the diameter shrinkage rate of beef and chicken burgers with fat substituted with quinoa powder decreased from 34.55% in treatment T 1 to 28.62% in treatment T 2 , and to 15.16% in treatment T 4 . The decline in the deflation rate in exchange transactions can be explained by the release of fat, water, and meat protein during cooking, in addition to the fact that the expanding agents used in the burger mixture can form a gel and retain a certain amount of moisture and fat, which limits shrinkage in beef and chicken burgers. This is consistent with [27,28] . The results in Table (3) show that the percentage of weight loss during cooking has a significant effect (P< 0.05) on plant fibers. It is noticed that there is a decrease in the percentage of weight loss during cooking in the two treatments (T 4 and T 2 ), 12.29% and 29.69%, respectively. But, in the treatments (T 3 , T 1 ) it was recorded 34.23% and 18.81%, respectively. This may be due to the ability of quinoa to absorb water and prevent its loss during heat treatment. The results are close to [29,30] .

water holding capacity increased significantly in T 4 as it was able to retain 66.12% water compared to T 1 , which was able to retain 49.49% water. Increased water retention capacity is because the quinoa flour in both replacements binds with water and has a very high absorption capacity. These results are similar to [31,32] .

Sensory analysis

Data in Table (4) indicate how using a plant-based additive affects color ratings of beef and chicken burgers. There were no statistically significant differences (P ≤ 0.05) between color ratings among any of the groups of burgers examined. The reason for this finding might be that the colors of the meat products are determined by the pigments present in the meat, and plant-based additives have no effect on those pigments [33,34] . In contrast, flavor ratings were statistically different between the treatments evaluated. Treatments T 4 and T 2 have the lowest mean flavor ratings, 7.1 and 7.1, respectively, while treatments T 1 and T 3 had the highest mean flavor ratings, 8.1 and 7.7, respectively. The relatively low flavor ratings for the plants containing quinoa in T 4 and T 2 may be due to the taste associated with quinoa that might not match up to consumers' expectations of a traditional hamburger flavor [35] . On the other hand, the softness rating increased significantly in treatments T 4 and T 2 to 8.3 and 7.8, respectively, while decreasing in treatments T 3 and T 1 to 7.6 and 7.3. The reason for the high softness rating is attributed to the increased water-holding capacity in quinoa powder, as it is a filler material that holds the largest amount of water. The results were close to [36,37] . Also, the addition of quinoa flour powder resulted in a higher mean juiciness score, for T 2 8.4, followed by T 4 7.9, than T 1 7.2 or T 3 7.2. The justification for the higher juiciness ratings for T 2 and T 4 might relate to their being effective fillers that retain moisture [38] . Meanwhile, the highest overall acceptability rating was recorded in treatments (T 1 and T 3 ), 7.3 and 7.2, respectively. Whereas, it decreased in treatments (T 2 and T 4 ), 6.1 and 6.2, respectively. The reason for the lower overall acceptability rating in the quinoa flour powder treatments is attributed to the lower rating of the flavor rating. The results were close to [39,40] .

Conclusion

According to the study's findings, quinoa may be a successful partial-fat substitute in burger products to improve their nutritional content. Quinoa flour can replace 35% of animal fat in the process of producing beef and chicken hamburgers and provide significant improvements in the chemical and physical properties of the final product and in some sensory properties. There was an increase in moisture and protein, which gives a greater nutritional value. Furthermore, the reduction of the fat content improves the health of a hamburger and promotes healthy eating. The improvement of the water retention and reduced cooking loss, as evidenced by improved chemical and physical properties of the product, indicates improved cooking performance and tenderness of the finished product. In terms of sensory assessment of the product, it demonstrates that the product is tender and juicy, which is highly beneficial for preserving the quality of the final product. Overall, the data demonstrate that the use of quinoa flour can be used as a viable nutritional and functional ingredient to add to the technological/nutritional properties of processed meats while maintaining product quality.

Recommendations

It is recommended that quinoa be utilized as a healthy fat alternative. The proportion of quinoa that should be used will vary depending on whether you are attempting to obtain the optimum nutritional value or the optimum sensory qualities. Various spices or methods of preparing quinoa may be used to improve its overall taste and make it more attractive; this is also true for other foods prepared from quinoa. Additionally, a cost-benefit analysis of using quinoa in comparison with fat sources of animal origin should be performed.

References

1. Azizi P, Nateghi L. Effect of Inulin and Microcrystalline Cellulose on Oil Absorption, Texture, and Sensory Characteristics of Prebiotic Chicken Nuggets. 2021:71-82.
2. Bahmanyar F, Hosseini SM, Mirmoghtadaie L, Shojaee-Aliabadi S. Effects of replacing soy protein and bread crumb with quinoa and buckwheat flour in functional beef burger formulation. Meat science. 2021;172:108305.
3. Bis-Souza CV, Henck JM, Barretto AC. Performance of low-fat beef burger with added soluble and insoluble dietary fibers. Food Science and Technology. 2018;12(38):522-529.
4. Baioumy AA, Bobreneva IV, Tvorogova AA, Abedelmaksoud TG. Effect of quinoa seed and tiger nut mixture on quality characteristics of low-fat beef patties. International Food Research Journal. 2021;28(5).
5. Elsohaimy SA, Refaay TM, Zaytoun MA. Physicochemical and functional properties of quinoa protein isolate. Annals of Agricultural Sciences. 2015;60(2):297-305.
6. Saeed MA, Suleman R, Ismail T, Qamar M, Sattar DE, Zulfiqar S, et al. Supplementation of chicken meatballs with quinoa flour for enhancing the quality and nutritional profile. Cogent Food & Agriculture. 2026;12(1):2600134.
7. Ursachi CS, Perta-Crisan S, Munteanu FD. Strategies to improve the quality of meat products. Foods. 2020;9(12):18-26.
8. Erdem N, Alici H. Effects of flour additives on glutenfree chicken croquettes. FLEISCHWIRTSCHAFT. 2023;103(7):76-85.
9. Ali AA, Ali AH, Nassar MA, Elgeilany SM, Ezzat SM. Quinoa as a functional crop with emphasis on distribution, nutritional composition, and biological effects. Discover Food. 2025;5(1):285.
10. Pellegrini M, Lucas-Gonzales R, Ricci A, Fontecha J, Fernández-López J, Pérez Álvarez JA, et al. Chemical, fatty acid, polyphenolic profile, techno-functional and antioxidant properties of flours obtained from quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd) seeds. Industrial Crops and Products. 2018;111(3):38-46.
11. Judge MD. Meat technology to meet the needs of the food service industry: Meat patties. In Proceedings. 1974.
12. Purchas RW, Barton RA. The tenderness of the meat of several breeds of cattle raised under New Zealand pastoral conditions. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research. 1976;19(4):421-428.
13. Price JF, Schiweigert BS. The science of meat and meat products. Ed. 2. 1971.
14. Garcia ML, Calvo MM, Selgas MD. Beef hamburgers enriched in lycopene using dry tomato peel as an ingredient. Meat Science. 2009;83(1):45-49.
15. Cross R. Training and testing of judges for sensory analysis of meat quality. Food Technol. 1978;36:48-54.
16. Duncan DB. Multiple range and multiple F tests. Biometrics. 1955;11(1):1-42.
17. SAS. Statistical Analysis System; User's Guide. Statistical. Version 9.1th edition. SAS Inst. Inc. Cary, N.C. USA. 2010.
18. Szpicer A, Onopiuk A, Połtorak A, Wierzbicka A. The influence of oat $\beta$-glucan content on the physicochemical and sensory properties of low-fat beef burgers. CyTA-Journal of Food. 2020;18(1):315-327.
19. Motawei AM, Salem ME, Aref S, Ayoub TE. Evaluation of Nutritionally Enhanced Low-Fat Beef Burgers for the Elderly with Chia Seed Flour as a Functional Fat Substitute. Journal of Food & Dairy Sciences. 2025;16(8).
20. Saber YA, Mohammed MJ, Ayed HS. Use of Vegetable Fibers as a Substitute for Animal Fats in the Manufacture of Burgers and the Study of Their Qualitative Characteristics. In IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science. IOP Publishing; 2023;1214(1):012011.
21. Osheba AS, Ali AM, Ismail EM, Saleh RN. Quality criteria of low and reduced-fat beef burger using quinoa and Jerusalem artichoke as fat replacers during frozen storage at-18° C. African Journal of Biological Sciences. 2024;20(1):45-64.
22. Naghdi S, Rezaei M, Kashiri M, Rezaei F, Naseri S, Nourani H, et al. Development and Evaluation of Low-Fat Fish and Chicken Nuggets Fortified with Date Seed Powder and Quinoa Flour as Agricultural Dietary Fiber Sources. Food Science and Nutrition. 2025;13(4):e4749.
23. Szpicer A, Onopiuk A, Półtorak A, Wierzbicka A. Influence of oat $\beta$-glucan and canola oil addition on the physico-chemical properties of low-fat beef burgers. Journal of Food Processing and Preservation. 2018;42(11):e13785.
24. Botella-Martinez C, Gea-Quesada A, Sayas-Barbera E, Perez-Alvarez JA, Fernandez-Lopez J, Viuda-Martos M. Improving the lipid profile of beef burgers added with chia oil (Salvia hispanica L.) or hemp oil (Cannabis sativa L.) gelled emulsions as partial animal fat replacers. Food Science and Technology. 2022;161(12):113-121.
25. Öztürk-Kerimoğlu B, Kavuşan HS, Tabak D, Serdaroğlu M. Formulating reduced-fat sausages with quinoa or teff flours: effects on emulsion characteristics and product quality. Food Science of Animal Resources. 2020;40(5):710.
26. Al-Salam Y, Mohammed MJ, Ayed HS. Effect of Molecular Substitution of Oats and Chia Powder for Animal Fats on Chemical Indicators and Physical Properties in the Manufacture of Freeze-Preserved Beef Burgers. Tikrit Journal for Agricultural Sciences. 2024;24(1):170-179.
27. Serdaroğlu M, Yüncü-Boyacı Ö, Kavuşan HS. Utilizing chia flour-based gelled emulsion for the development of functional beef patties with an enhanced nutritional profile. Food Science & Nutrition. 2024;12(10):73167330.
28. Osheba AS, Ali AM, Ismail EM, Saleh RN. Quality criteria of low and reduced-fat beef burger using quinoa and Jerusalem artichoke as fat replacers during frozen storage at-18° C. African Journal of Biological Sciences. 2024;20(1):45-64.
29. Erfanian Z, Nouri M. Novel potential of low-calorie plant burger: Functional turkey meat formulation optimized by replacing quinoa, chia, soy, amaranth, and peas as vegetable protein and their influence on texture and sensory traits. Plos one. 2025;20(7):e0325622.
30. Hanifah NF, Yahya HN, Arifin N. Physicochemical Properties, Nutritional Composition, and Sensory Acceptance of Chicken Meat Sausages with Chia Seed Powder Substitution. Malaysian Journal of Science, Health and Technology. 2021;1(7):34-42.
31. Dautova A, Amirkhanov K, Baytukenova S, Nurymkhan G, Assirzhanova Z, Atambayeva Z, et al. Enhancing emulsified sausages: a comprehensive study of the nutritional, sensory, and sustainability advantages of quinoa flour incorporation. Cogent Food & Agriculture. 2024;10(1):2426612.
32. ELKatry HO, Elsawy HA. Physicochemical and biological evaluation of beef burger partially substituted with powdered quinoa seed instead of animal fat. International Journal of Family Studies, Food Science and Nutrition Health. 2021;2(1):68-93.
33. Poursalehi Manizheh, Zainali Fariba, Alizadeh Mohammad, Almasy Hadi. Generating fresh sausage using the following ingredients: quinoa, barley, high physicochemical methods, and pastries. 2021.
34. Naghdi S, Rezaei M, Kashiri M, Rezaei F, Naseri S, Nourani H, et al. Development and Evaluation of Low-Fat Fish and Chicken Nuggets Fortified with Date Seed Powder and Quinoa Flour as Agricultural Dietary Fiber Sources. Food Science & Nutrition. 2025;13(4):e4749.
35. Kenawi MA, Salam RA, Abdel-Hameed SM, Mohamed MM. Stability of vacuum-packaged low-fat chicken burger extended by quinoa powder. 2022:83-94.
36. Erdem N, Alici H. Effects of flour additives on glutenfree chicken croquettes. FLEISCHWIRTSCHAFT. 2023;103(7):76-85.
37. Zaki EF. Impact of adding chia seeds (Salvia hispanica) on the quality properties of camel burger "Camburger" during cold storage. International Journal of Current Microbiology and Applied Sciences. 2018;7(3):13561363.
38. Mohamed AT, Khallaf MF, Yasin N, Shehata MF. Use of chia and quinoa plants as partial substitutes for fat and/or camel meat to produce sausage with functional properties. Egyptian Journal of Nutrition and Feeds. 2025;28(1):127-137.
39. Park JH, Lee YJ, Lim JG, Jeon JH, Yoon KS. Effect of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.) starch and seeds on the physicochemical, textural, and sensory properties of chicken meatballs during frozen storage. Foods. 2021;10(7):1601.