30 International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2007, 42, 30–35

Original article
Properties of five canned luncheon meat formulations as affected
by quality of raw materials

Basem Mohd Abdullah

Department of Nutrition and Food Technology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Jordan, Amman, Jordan
(Received 11 October 2005; Accepted in revised form 31 October 2005)

Summary Five formulations for commercial luncheon meat were prepared and canned, then analysed for proximate
composition, thiobarbituric acid (TBA) value, peroxide value, pH, acidity (% as free fatty acid, FFA) and
subjected to sensory analysis. Small differences (P ¼ 0.05) in the proximate composition were recorded, but
all samples came within the required Jordanian Standard for the product. TBA values were the highest in
luncheon meat containing the highest percentage of mechanically deboned chicken meat. The most preferred
colour to the panel was achieved in samples containing the greatest percentage of beef heart and lowest fat
content; these samples were also the juiciest. The highest scoring samples for sensory evaluation were those
that contained beef flank, topside and heart.
Keywords Chemical analysis, luncheon meat, raw materials, sensory characteristics.

meat producers are now substituting red muscle meat

Introduction
Canned luncheon meat is one of the most commonly
processed meat products in Jordan, almost the first to be
widely marketed and distributed, since at the time of its
introduction, 35 years ago, refrigeration was not widely
available.
Canned luncheon meat is a comminuted, emulsified,
semisolid meat product prepared from raw skeletal
muscle and/or mechanically deboned meat that is
seasoned and cured with sodium nitrite (NaNO2). Water
and/or ice may be used to facilitate chopping, mixing
and dissolution of dry ingredients. Beef from primal cuts
(flank and topside), mechanically deboned poultry
(usually chicken) meat (MDCM), beef heart, soya
protein flour or concentrate, starch, salt, phosphate,
NaNO2, ascorbate and ice water are the main ingredi-
ents of the canned luncheon meat formula (Jordanian
Standard JS:79, 1996).
Final product characteristics are affected by the
quality of raw materials used in the formulation;
consequently, care should be taken to minimise inclu-
sion of ingredients of poor quality. Such ingredients
may include MDCM, beef heart and beef fat, which are
favoured because of their relative cheapness compared
with muscle meats, although they also confer some
desirable functional properties. However, Jordanian
Correspondent: Fax: (962-6) 5355577;
e-mail: basem@ju.edu.jo
for lower quality raw materials and are encouraging
consumers to purchase these products on a basis of low
fat, high meat content and improved sensory properties.
However, consumers must perceive the modified lun-
cheon meat to be a better quality product, and to
achieve this the red meat must be of good quality.
Because it is inexpensive, MDCM is employed in a
wide range of Jordanian meat products including
luncheon meat, frankfurters, mortadella, hot dogs and
salami (Jordanian Standard JS:816, 1996). Other advan-
tages of MDCM include the fact that it provides a
minced product with a texture similar to that of minced
beef but with less fat, and in conjunction with beef heart,
can contribute a high haemoglobin content, thereby
assisting development of the cured pink colour desired
by consumers (Baker & Bruce, 1995). Disadvantages of
MDCM include variability of composition caused
by variation in the age of chicken, breed, amount of
meat on the bones (Church & Wood, 1992) and
a tendency to oxidative rancidity (Al-Najdawi &
Abdullah, 2002).
Luncheon meat producers therefore need to consider
raw meat prices, cut of meat, chemical composition and
functional quality properties to obtain products of
consistently high quality that comply with Jordanian
standards at a competitive price. Furthermore, as the
meat industry in Jordan depends on imported red meat
frozen as blocks, producers have little control over the
quality and composition of the meat.

doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.2006.01195.x
Ó 2006 Institute of Food Science and Technology Trust Fund
 Properties of five canned luncheon meat formulations B.M. Abdullah 31

The purpose of this study is to compare the properties
of five commercial luncheon meat formulations on sale
in Jordan and to identify the optimal formulation for
luncheon meat quality.
Materials and methods
Luncheon meat preparation
The formulations for the five different types of luncheon
meat are shown in Table 1. All the meat sources were
commercial frozen imports. These were tempered over-
night at 7 °C, flaked and mixed for homogeneity. The
meat for each formulation was bowl-chopped (K506
AC8; Seydelmann, Stuttgart, Germany) and the mixing
of the ingredients was carried out in four stages: first the
raw meat and soya concentrate were added, secondly
water, NaCl, phosphate and NaNO2, thirdly spices and
finally potato starch. The total chopping time was
16 min, and the final batter temperature was 6 °C. Two
separate batches were prepared, each having a weight of
100 kg.
Each mix was filled into 850 g cans using a Hema filler
(DM60CB; Hema Technologies, Quimper Cedex,
France) and the cans sealed and heated in a retort
(Stock GmbH, Neumunster, Germany) at 118 °C for
60 min. The cans were water-cooled in the retort to
40 °C. Finally, the cans were unloaded and crated for
storage at ambient temperature until required for
analysis.
Proximate analysis
An Infratec meat analyser (Tecator Model 1265, Foss
Tecator, Hoganas, Sweden; Berg & Kolar, 1991) was
used to determine fat, protein and moisture contents.
Table 1 Formulations of five types of canned luncheon meat
Ash determination was carried out according to AOAC
method no. 920.153 (AOAC, 1995). The pH value was
determined by blending 10 g of sample with 90 ml
distilled water (Kirk & Sawyer, 1991) and measuring
using a pH meter (WPA, Cambridge, UK).
Thiobarbituric acid number
Oxidative rancidity of samples from the five formula-
tions was quantified using thiobarbituric acid (TBA)
values determined spectrophotometrically (Johns et al.,
1989; Faustman et al., 1992).
The TBA number was expressed as milligram malon-
aldehyde/kg sample
TBA no. ¼ 7:8  D
where D is the absorbance of the sample at 532 nm.
Peroxide value
The oxidative rancidity of the extracted lipid from the
meat samples was evaluated using the method of Kirk &
Sawyer (1991).
Free fatty acid
Samples representing the five luncheon meat formula-
tions were analysed for free fatty acid (FFA) according
to the method of Kirk & Sawyer (1991).
Sensory analysis
Fifteen panellists evaluated the five canned luncheon
meat formulations. The panellists were mainly graduate
students and departmental staff who had considerable
experience in sensory evaluation of such products. Six
characteristics were evaluated using a 9-point hedonic
scale (Larmond, 1991): colour, flavour, juiciness,
texture, appearance and overall acceptability.

Luncheon meat formulation F1 F2 F3 F4 F5

Statistical analysis
Formulations of five types – 38.3 64.9 48 40
The results were analysed statistically using the SAS
of canned luncheon meat
statistical package. Analysis of variance for a complete
MDCM (%)
Beef heart (%) 15.3 3.3 7.6 7.0
randomised split-plot design using Duncan’s multiple
Beef flank (%) 42.2 21.1 – 17 21.6 range test and the least significant difference test were
Beef fat (%) – 3.8 8.8 11.2 11.2 used to determine significant differences between dupli-
Beef top side (%) 24.8 – – – – cate means of each treatment.
Added water (%) 23 10.2 11.2 9.0 9.0
Potato starch (%) 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8 5.8
Soya concentrate (%) 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5
Results and discussion
NaCl (%) 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Spices mixture (%) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 Formulation
Phosphate (%) 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4
Table 2 shows that the moisture content of the different
Sodium ascorbate (%) 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05 0.05
NaNO2 (ppm) 120 120 120 120 120
formulations reflected the amount of added water; F1
had a significantly higher (P < 0.05) moisture content

Ó 2006 Institute of Food Science and Technology Trust Fund International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2007, 42, 30–35
32 Properties of five canned luncheon meat formulations B.M. Abdullah

Table 2 Proximate composition of luncheon meat formulations Table 3 Chemical characteristics of luncheon meat formulations

Luncheon meat Moisture Protein Fat Ash Formulation Acidity (FFA) pH Peroxide value* TBA(mg kg)1)
formulation (%) (%) (%) (%)
F1 80.5ab 5.5cb 2.8a 0.75ab
a ab bc a
F1 63.5 16.7 16.7 3.9 F2 82.0ab 7.5a 2.9a 0.80a
F2 61.9ab 14.7ab 18.4ab 3.7a F3 78.5b 7.5a 3.2a 0.80a
F3 61.2b 13.8b 19.6a 3.8a F4 82.0ab 5.0c 2.0a 0.70b
F4 61.0b 19.5a 15.8c 4.0a F5 86.0a 6.0b 2.6a 0.60c
F5 62.0ab 18.5ab 15.5c 4.0a
*Peroxide value expressed as milliequivalent oxygen per 1000 g sample.
Each value is a mean of four readings. Each value is a mean of two readings.
Means with the same letter in any column are not significantly different Means with the same letter in any column are not significantly different
(P < 0.05). (P < 0.05).

(63.5%) than the others; this formulation had the
highest amount of added water (23%; Table 1) while
F4, with a moisture content of 61.0%, had only 9%
added water, but also 11.2% beef fat, which could
reduce the moisture content of the product.
Protein content ranged from 13.8% (F3) to 19.5%
(F4), probably attributable to the relatively high pro-
portion of beef flank and beef heart in F4 compared
with the absence of flank in F3; furthermore, F3 had
more added water than F4. Somewhat surprisingly,
however, addition of the highest proportion of MDCM
(64.9%) to F3 failed to improve the protein content
beyond 13.8%. Inclusion of beef flank (42.2%) and
topside (24.8%) in F1 brought the protein content to
16.7%, suggesting that flank contributed a substantial
amount of protein, making the protein content not
significantly different (P < 0.05) from F4, which con-
tains beef heart (not added to F1).
Table 2 demonstrates that F3 had the highest fat
content (19.6%) and F5 the lowest (15.45%). This could
be explained by the addition of beef flank (21.6%), a
lean cut, to F5, whereas it was not used in F3.
Moreover, the beef heart included in F5 was almost
twice that in F3, also aiding the reduction of fat in F5.
Ash content was in the range 3.7–4.0 (Table 2), with
no significant difference (P < 0.05) between the lunch-
eon meat formulations.
In general, although the results of proximate analysis
show minor differences, all values were within the
requirements of the Jordanian Luncheon Meat Standard
(JS: 79/1996), and it appears that processors have taken
this into consideration when developing their formula-
tions.
Chemical characteristics
The results of the chemical characteristics of the
luncheon meat formulations are presented in Table 3.
The pH values ranged from 5.0 (F4) to 7.5 (F2).
The FFA value was the highest for F5 (86.0), which
was paradoxical, as it had the lowest fat content
(Table 2), while F3, which had the highest fat level,
showed the lowest concentration of FFA (78.5). As
added quantities of all non-meat ingredients (except
water) were identical, the variation must be attributable
to the meat and the effect of heat on the constituents
(Pearson et al., 1994).
The TBA value was the highest for F2 and F3
(0.8 mg kg)1; Table 3) as might be expected, because F3
contains 64.9% MDCM (the highest level) and F2
contains a moderately high level (38.3%). A high value
in F3 could be anticipated, because the phospholipid
fraction of the lipid has been shown to contribute
approximately 90% of the TBA-reactive substances in
chicken fat (Gray et al., 1994) and MDCM contributes
a high phospholipid content. A high level of added
MDCM has become commonplace in Jordan and other
countries as part of a general trend towards wider
utilisation of poultry meat. However, use of MDCM in
meat products should be limited, because of the presence
of bone marrow that contributes high levels of copper,
iron and magnesium. These metals act as catalysts in the
oxidation of lipids, causing off-flavours (Varnam &
Sutherland, 1995). Furthermore, when frozen fat is used,
especially at high levels, oxidative rancidity resulting
from excessively long storage commonly occurs (Pear-
son & Tauber, 1984).
Sensory evaluation
The sensory evaluation results are shown in Table 4.
Colour
The lowest colour score of 5.1 occurred with F3, while
F2 scored highest at 8.1. The colour scores of F1, F2
and F5 were not significantly different from each other
(P < 0.05). F3 (Table 1) contained the highest addition
of MDCM, with a low addition of beef heart (3.3%) and
moderate level of beef fat (8.8%), resulting in the highest
fat level (19.5%), lowest protein content (13.8%) and
lowest score for colour (Table 4). In F3, the MDCM
and beef hearts were the only sources of myoglobin and
were insufficient to give a good cured pink colour
desired by consumers.

International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2007, 42, 30–35 Ó 2006 Institute of Food Science and Technology Trust Fund

Table 4 Sensory characteristics of five sam-
ples of canned luncheon meat
The highest concentration of beef heart (15.3%) and a
moderate level of flank (21.1%) were present in F2,
which achieved the highest colour score (8.1). This is
probably attributable to the high myoglobin content,
contributed particularly by the heart meat. Pearson &
Tauber (1984) comment that heart and cheek meats are
good sources of myoglobin and can be used to
advantage in products that tend to be pale in colour,
as in the case of canned luncheon meat. Furthermore, a
high level of beef heart for colour is favoured by meat
processors.
High colour scores were also achieved by F1 and F5
(7.4 and 7.5, respectively). F1 contained a high propor-
tion of lean meat (42.2% flank and 24.8% topside) while
F5, although it contained no topside, was formulated
with 21.6% flank and 11.2% heart. Varnam & Suther-
land (1995) claimed that the higher lean meat content,
the higher the quality of the end product. The
concentrations of lean meat in F1 and F5 were clearly
sufficient to provide a highly acceptable colour score.
Flavour
The highest score for flavour (7.7) was achieved by F2
(Table 4). There were no significant differences
(P < 0.05) between flavour scores for F1, F2, F4 and
F5, but F3 gained a significantly lower score (5.5) than
the other four formulations. F3 also had the poorest
colour score, coinciding with the highest fat and
MDCM contents and the lowest protein content
(Table 2). It showed the highest TBA and peroxide
values (Table 3), which are indicators of rancidity
(Kochhar, 1993); consequently, it was probably rancid-
ity that accounted for the low flavour score. The high
MDCM content can be associated with rancidity (see
above) and Pearson & Tauber (1984) recommend that
for control of rancidity, not more than 30% MDCM
should be included in sausages, with an optimum level of
5–10%, to avoid structural and flavour problems in the
final product. Finally, cured flavour was poor in F3,
probably because of the absence of skeletal muscle in
which curing takes place.
Juiciness
Samples of F2 scored the highest for juiciness (7.5), with
F5 marginally lower (7.4). Although F3 had the highest
Ó 2006 Institute of Food Science and Technology Trust Fund
Properties of five canned luncheon meat formulations B.M. Abdullah 33
Formulation Colour Flavour Juiciness Texture Appearance Overall acceptability
F1 7.4a 6.8a 6.7ab 6.7cb 7.3abc 6.7b
F2 8.1a 7.7a 7.5a 7.3ab 7.6ab 7.8a
F3 5.1c 5.7b 5.7b 5.9c 6.4c 5.7c
F4 6.2b 6.5ab 6.5ab 7.1ab 6.7c 6.5b
F5 7.5a 7.4a 7.4a 7.7a 8.0a 7.9a
Mean scores are an average of fifteen results.
Means with the same letter are not significantly different (P < 0.05).
fat content, it did not score the highest for juiciness, as
might be expected (Beilken et al., 1991). This is likely to
be because taste panellists tend not to like juiciness
associated with increases in fat content (Lee et al.,
1987). Samples of F3 scored 5.7, significantly lower than
F2 and F5 (P < 0.05). However, Lee et al. (1987) found
that juiciness was not influenced by fat content in beef
frankfurter in the range 16–27% fat (giving a product
similar in physical properties to the canned luncheon
meat reported herein). Moisture might be considered an
important determinant of juiciness, as Winger &
Hagyard (1994) considered that juiciness arose as a
consequence of moisture released from the meat during
chewing. However, the relatively minor differences in fat
and moisture between the five formulations (Table 2)
were considered insufficient to elicit the observed vari-
ation in luncheon meat juiciness, so other factors must
account for the difference. The juiciness scores of all
formulations were acceptable (including F3), so the
differences were probably due to the types of meat used.
Samples of F2 had the lowest MDCM, which may
contribute to the juicy mouth feel while F3 that
contained the highest level of MDCM would have a
high content of calcium and particulate bone material
(Froning, 1979; Barbut et al., 1984), possibly detracting
from the perception of juiciness.
The similar juiciness scores of F2 and F5 could be
attributed to the almost identical content of added
MDCM and beef flank. This supports our theory that
juiciness is related to the type of meat used in the
formulations, rather than the chemical composition of
the luncheon meat. Juiciness variation among muscles
from different parts of the carcase was also reported by
Parrish et al. (1991), who found significant differences
among eight different beef cuts cooked by roasting or
broiling.
Texture
The lowest scores for texture were achieved by F1 and
F3 (Table 4). Although increasing moisture and fat
contents of processed meats can improve texture, the
texture results herein reported did not correlate as
expected with moisture and fat content.
The physical properties of MDCM (lack of texture
and shape, resulting in a puree-like consistency)
International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2007, 42, 30–35
34 Properties of five canned luncheon meat formulations B.M. Abdullah
suggest that if incorporated as a significant percentage
in processed meat, the meat will have a poor texture
(Barbut et al., 1984), possibly explaining the low
texture score of F3. In addition, description of
texture by panellists is influenced by other sensory
characteristics, mainly juiciness. This is suggested by
the results of this work because F3 has the lowest
juiciness and texture scores (Table 4). As mentioned
above in the context of juiciness, bone particles in
MDCM probably affect mouth feel of products
containing a high proportion (e.g. F3), thus influen-
cing the texture score as well as juiciness (Barbut
et al., 1984).
Appearance
Evaluation of appearance resulted in F5 scoring highly,
followed by F1 and F2 (not significantly different in
score from F5), while F3 and F4 received significantly
lower scores for appearance.
Overall acceptability
Formulations F2 and F5 achieved the significantly
highest overall acceptability scores, followed by F1
and F4, with F3 the least acceptable. The chemical
composition (moisture, protein and fat) does not appear
to have greatly influenced the overall acceptability of the
different formulations. In contrast, however, the meat
sources, specifically inclusion of beef flank, appear to
have increased the overall acceptability of the highest
scoring samples, F2 and F5.
If the individual scores of colour, flavour, juiciness,
texture and appearance are added together for each
formulation, the same pattern of overall acceptability is
produced with F2 and F5 ranking first, followed by F1,
F4 and F3.
Conclusions
The results of this work show that
1 All formulations of canned luncheon meat met the
Jordanian legal specification, but not all are equally
acceptable to consumers.
2 The type of meat used in the formulation is more
important than the chemical composition in terms of
quality and acceptability.
3 The functionality of meat sources and their importance
to the quality attributes of luncheon meat should be
understood.
4 Use of good quality fat at various levels in the different
formulations was not necessarily a negative influence on
final product quality.
5 Use of up to 40% good quality mechanically deboned
chicken meat can give luncheon meat of acceptable
quality.
International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2007, 42, 30–35
6 The sensory attributes of luncheon meat as affected by
meat sources are possibly the most important determin-
ant of acceptability.
7 The total score for the individual sensory components of
each formulation emerged in the same order as the
scores for overall acceptability.
8 The acceptability of canned luncheon meat reflects
quality of the raw meats used in manufacture.
Acknowledgment
The author would like to thank the Scientific Research
Deanship at the University of Jordan for their valuable
support and fund to carry out this research.
References
Al-Najdawi, R. & Abdullah, B. (2002). Proximate composition,
selected minerals, cholesterol content and lipid oxidation of
mechanically and hand-deboned chickens from the Jordanian
market. Meat Science, 61, 243–247.
AOAC (1995). Official Methods of Analysis, 16th edn. Washington,
DC: Association of Official Analytical Chemists.
Baker, R.C. & Bruce, C.A. (1995). Further processing of poultry. In:
Processing of Poultry (edited by G.C. Mead). Pp. 251–282. London:
Chapman and Hall.
Barbut, S., Arrington, L.C. & Maurer, A.J. (1984). Optimum
utilization of turkey in summer sausages. Poultry Science, 63,
1160–1169.
Beilken, S.L., Eadie, L.M., Jones, P.N. & Harris, P.V. (1991).
Objective and subjective assessment of Australian sausages. Journal
of Food Science, 56, 636–642.
Berg, H. & Kolar, K. (1991). Evaluation of rapid moisture, fat, protein
and hydroxyproline determination in beef and pork using the
Infratec food and feed analyzer. Fleischwirtschaft, 71, 787–789.
Church, P.N. & Wood, J.M. (1992). The Manual of Manufacturing
Meat Quality. London: Elsevier Applied Science.
Faustman, C., Yin, M.C. & Naderu, D.B. (1992). Color stability and
nutrient composition of red and white veal. Journal of Food Science,
57, 302–304.
Froning, G.W. (1979). Characteristics of bone particles from various
poultry meat products. Poultry Science, 58, 1001–1003.
Gray, J.I., Pearson, A.M. & Monahan, F.J. (1994). Flavor and aroma
problems and their measurement in meat, poultry, and fish products.
In: Quality Attributes and their Measurement in Meat, Poultry and
Fish Products (edited by A.M. Pearson & T.R. Dutson). Pp. 250–
288. London: Blackie Academic and Professional.
Johns, A.M., Birkinshaw, L.H. & Ledward, D.A. (1989). Catalysts of
lipid oxidation in meat products. Meat Science, 25, 209–220.
Jordanian Standard JS:79 (1996). Meat and Meat Products: Canned
Luncheon Meat. Amman, Jordan: Jordanian Standards and Metrol-
ogy Institution.
Jordanian Standard JS:816 (1996). Meat and Meat Products: Emulsion
Type Sausage. Amman, Jordan: Jordanian Standards and Metrol-
ogy Institution.
Kirk, R.S. & Sawyer, R. (1991). Pearson’s Composition and Analysis of
Foods, 9th edn. Pp. 8–42. Essex: Longman Scientific and Technical.
Kochhar, S.P. (1993). Oxidation pathways to the formation of off-
flavours. In: Food Taints and Off-flavours (edited by M.J. Saxby).
Pp. 150–201. London: Blackie Academic and Professional.
Larmond, E. (1991). Laboratory Methods for Sensory Evaluation of
Food, 2nd edn. Ottawa: Canadian Department of Agriculture
Publication.
Ó 2006 Institute of Food Science and Technology Trust Fund

Lee, C.M., Whiting, R.C. & Jenkins, R.K. (1987). Texture and sensory
evaluation of frankfurters made with different formulations and
processes. Journal of Food Science, 52, 896–900.
Parrish, F.C., Jr, Boles, J.A., Rust, R.E. & Olson, D.G. (1991). Dry and
wet aging effects on palatability attributes of beef loin and rib steaks
from three quality grades. Journal of Food Science, 56, 601–603.
Pearson, A.M. & Tauber, F.W. (1984). Processed Meats, 2nd edn.
Westport: AVI Publishing Company, Inc.
Pearson, A.M., Gray, J.I. & Brennand, C.P. (1994). Species-specific
flavors and odors. In: Quality Attributes and their Measurement
Ó 2006 Institute of Food Science and Technology Trust Fund
Properties of five canned luncheon meat formulations B.M. Abdullah 35
in Meat, Poultry and Fish Products (edited by A.M. Pearson &
T.R. Dutson). Pp. 222–249. London: Blackie Academic and
Professional.
Varnam, A.H. & Sutherland, J.P. (1995). Meat and Meat Products.
London: Chapman and Hall.
Winger, R.J. & Hagyard, C.J. (1994). Juiciness-its importance and
some contributing factors. In: Quality Attributes and their Measure-
ment in Meat, Poultry and Fish Products (edited by A.M. Pearson
& T.R. Dutson). Pp. 94–124. London: Blackie Academic and
Professional.
International Journal of Food Science and Technology 2007, 42, 30–35