Name: Maureen V.

Segui
Date: May 10, 2023
Laboratory Exercise 6:
Beef Patty Processing

I. OBJECTIVES
1. To discuss the important meat properties that affect beef patty quality.
2. To determine the effect of substituting meat with egg plant on patty quality.

II. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Important Meat Properties that Affects Beef Patty Quality
During cooking, it is evident that the meat changes from raw, pinkish, chewy, and translucent to
opaque, firmer, darker, drier, succulent, juicier and smaller appearance, taste, and texture. This is
because meat properties are changed during heating which affects the organoleptic property of cooked
meat. Chemical changes that occurs during cooking includes color change from pink to grayish-
brown, coagulation of proteins, higher pH, juice releases because of lower water holding capacity,
distinct meat aroma and flavor, softening of meat encouraged by shrinking and fractional change of
collagen proteins to gelatin. (Belitz et al., 2009).
According to USDA (2019), 100 grams of raw, grounded beef with 80% lean meat and 20% fat
ratio has 61.9% water, 17.2% protein and 20% total lipids or fat. Protein, water, and fat content of
meat are chemical components that are factors affecting the quality of beef patties (Bohatala, 2017).
In addition, physical properties such as water holding capacity, water binding, appearance/ color and
emulsification of meat components affects the beef quality.
In general, proteins influence the texture-forming ability of meats or meat functionality such as
water holding capacity, gelation, binding, and emulsification (Xiong, 2014). Protein also binds with
water present in meat because of the polar attraction of each molecules; affects the water-holding
capacity of meats.
Moreover, meat proteins are considered emulsifying agents that influences the binding of the
meat components in the matrix to obtain better texture in meat batters or beef patties. For stable
emulsion of meat/ meat batter, proteins should be surrounded with thin fat particles during cooking.
The non-polar amino acid residues of tail of myosin attracts non-polar fatty acids while its polar
amino acid residues located in its head attracts the polar substance, water. Therefore, amount of
myosin in meat also affects its emulsifying property (Knipe, 1987).
 In cooking, high temperature causes proteins to denature and also contributes to lower water
holding capacity of meats (Yu et al., 2016). In texture, myofibrillar proteins in meat are responsible
for the rigid structure of meat wherein actin and myosin are responsible for muscle contractions in
meat. During cooking at 40 oC or 50 oC, myosin fibers denatures and coagulates; causing shrinkage in
size and changes the meat to cook and tender from raw and squishy texture. When temperature
increases at 66 to 73 oC, actin is also denatured and the protein fibers of meat are firmer, more
compact and smaller in size (Bohatala, 2017). Above 77 oC, proteins completely denatured and loses
rigidity; developing tenderness. As proteins are denatured, the bond between water and proteins are
also broken down, leading to moisture loss and impacting the juiciness of the meat. It also makes the
meat tough, and dry compared to the raw meat (Bohatala, 2017). Moreover, during protein
denaturation, the coiled structure of protein unfolds and coagulate which results to an opaque
appearance rather than translucent. More so, connective tissue proteins such as collagen are
hydrolyzed and converted into gelatin during cooking which also influences the tender texture of
meats.
In addition, the solubility of proteins affects the quality of beef patties as it is connected to the
functional properties in meat including water holding capacity, gelation, emulsification, and adhesion.
These functional properties are results of the solubility of soluble myofibrillar proteins with other
components in the matrix (Xiong, 2014).
Fat content also affects the quality of the patties as it influences the tenderness/ texture, juiciness,
aroma and flavor. The higher fat content in beef, the juicier the beef patties become. This is because
break down of fat improves the water holding capacity of meat as the distribution of fats in meat or
marbling lubricates the muscle fibers and makes the meat more tender and juicier, promoting
sensation of tenderness and juiciness in the mouth (Savell & Cross, 1998). Moreover, fat content
leads to the distinct aroma of beef patties because volatile compounds in fatty acids volatilize during
heating; providing a unique smell and flavor. Hence, higher fat content, higher volatilized
compounds, and more noticeable aroma. Volatilization of fatty acids could also increase the cooking
loss hence, smaller size of meats (Wong & Maga, 1995).
The color of the meat also affects the quality of beef patties wherein the color changes from
pinkish-red to grayish-brown. This is majorly because of the pigment protein, myoglobin wherein
higher myoglobin contents, the darker the color of meat. During cooking above 60oC, the myoglobin
denatures, losses binding ability to oxygen and electron loss in iron, its center atom. This later
produces hemi chrome and higher temperatures converts myoglobin to metmyoglobin; the grayish-
brown color (Gardiner and Wilson, 2018).
 Water holding capacity (WHC) is the ability of meat to retain and maintain inherent or added
water after processing (Bowker, 2017). This is an important meat property as it influences the color,
taste, juiciness and tenderness of beef patties. Water holding capacity of meats also affects the
cooking yield wherein meats with higher WHC loses less moisture during heating as it can retain
moisture/water better that meats with lower WHC. This indicates that high water-holding capacity
yields superior patties in terms of texture and taste; juicier and tender whereas beef with low WHC
has drier and tough texture (Huff-Lonergan,2006).

Table 1. Cooking Loss of Beef Patties

Initial weight Final weight Cooking loss (%)
(before cooking) (after cooking)
A Patty 1 75 g 61.9 g 17.47
(treated: 40% Patty 2 75 g 61.2 g 18.4
eggplant + 60% Patty 3 75 g 62 g 17.33
ground beef) Patty 4 75 g 59.7 20.44
Average 18.41
B Patty 1 75.2 g 63.1 g 19.18
(control: 100% Patty 2 75 g 59.2 g 21.07
ground beef) Patty 3 75 g 61.6 g 17.87
Patty 4 75 g 61.5 g 18
Average 19.03

Cooking Loss of Beef Patties

Cooking loss is the percentage of meat weight loss after cooking. It is calculated by subtracting
the weight of cooked patty (final weight) from the weight of raw patty (initial weight), then divided
by the weight of raw patty (initial weight). Cooking loss is a significant factor to consider in the meat
industry because it determines the total product yield after cooking processes. It is also used to
determine the water-holding capacity of meat and stipulate the raw meat protein characteristics and
meat functionality which affects the quality of the final product after subjected to processing such as
cooking (Pang et al., 2020).
From the table 1, it is evident that after cooking, the weight of each patty for treated (A) and
controlled (B) groups have reduced in weight. In addition, patty 2 from the control (B) sample yielded
the highest (21.07%) cooking loss whereas patty 3 from the treated (A) sample had 17.33% cooking
loss, the lowest among all the samples. The average cooking loss for control samples (B) also has
 higher average cooking loss of 19.03. Meanwhile, 18.41% average cooking loss was obtained from
the treated samples (A). This means there is more weight and moisture loss from the pure ground beef
patties (B) compared to the patties made from 60:40 ratio of ground beef an eggplant (A).
The difference from the obtained percent cooking loss in the data is heavily influenced by the
modified ground beef ratio used in making patty samples. The control (B) samples were make from
100% ground beef while the treated (A) sample has 60% ground beef and 40% boiled and smashed
eggplant. Compared to pure grounded beef with approximately 70% moisture (Li et al., 2018), the
treated sample has eggplants with 90% moisture (Rodriguez-Jimenez, 2018); higher moisture/ water
content. Therefore, it is expected that higher temperature or longer cooking time is needed to remove
moisture from the treated sample. Moreover, more fat is present in the control sample; more fatty
acids and volatile compounds would have evaporated compared to the treated (A) samples; could
contribute to higher cooking loss than the control (B) samples.

Acceptability Test of the Beef Patties

The control (100% beef) and treated (60% beef) samples were subjected to an acceptability test.
Sixteen (16) untrained panelists evaluated the samples via 9-point Hedonic Scale based on their
degree of likability and unlikability of the two samples from 1 (dislike extremely) to 9 (like
extremely).

MASTER SHEET

A= 40% eggplant + 60% grounded beef (treated sample)

B= 100% grounded beef (controlled sample)

Judge SAMPLE
No.
1 A ap tx ts oa B ap tx ts oa
2 146 6 4 8 8 255 8 8 8 8
3 146 8 4 7 8 255 9 9 8 9
4 146 5 6 9 7 255 7 7 8 8
5 146 7 7 8 7 255 9 7 9 8
6 146 7 7 7 7 255 8 8 8 8
7 146 6 9 7 6 255 9 8 9 9
8 146 6 6 7 7 255 8 6 6 6
 9 146 7 5 8 7 255 8 9 8 8
10 146 7 7 6 7 255 8 7 8 8
11 146 7 8 8 8 255 8 8 7 8
12 146 7 9 8 8 255 8 8 8 8
13 146 8 8 7 7 255 8 8 9 8
14 146 7 8 7 7 255 8 9 9 9
15 146 6 7 7 8 255 8 9 9 9
16 146 7 8 9 8 255 7 8 5 8
*ap- appearance, tx- texture, ts- taste, oa- overall acceptability

HYPOTHESIS

Ho: The appearance of the treated sample (A) is not significantly different from the control sample (B).

Ha: The appearance of the treated sample (A) is significantly different from the control sample (B).

DECODED MASTER SHEET

Judge No. Appearance

A B
1 a 8
2 6 9
3 8 7
4 5 9
5 7 8
6 7 9
7 6 8
8 6 8
9 7 8
10 7 8
11 7 8
12 7 8
13 8 8
14 7 8
15 6 7
 16 7 8
Total 108 129
Mean 6.75 8.06
(like moderately) (like very much)
Decision: if t stat > t critical two-tail, reject null hypothesis.

t-test: Two-sample Assuming Unequal Variances:

A B
Mean 6.75 8.0625
0.32916666
Variance 0.6 7
Observations 16 16
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
Df 28
t Stat -5.446437104
P(T<=t) one-tail 4.09816E-06
t Critical one-tail 1.701130934
P(T<=t) two-tail 8.19631E-06
t Critical two-tail 2.048407142

Since the t critical two-tail is greater than the t stat (-5.446 < 2.048), there is no sufficient
evidence to reject the null hypothesis; the appearance of the sample with 40% eggplant (A) is not
significantly different from the 100% grounded beef (B). Therefore, statistically there is no difference
between the pure grounded beef and the 40% substituted eggplant beef patties in terms of appearance.
However, there is an evident difference of the appearance between the two samples where in the pure
grounded beef (B) appears darker in color whereas the treated (A) sample has lighter color with yellow
and green spots indicating eggplant bits. This could also be because of the amount of myoglobin in the
samples; the darker color from control (B) beef patties and varied color in treated (A) beef patties.

HYPOTHESIS

Ho: The texture of the treated sample (A) is not significantly different from the control sample (B).

Ha: The texture of the treated sample (A) is significantly different from the control sample (B).
 Judge No. Texture
A B
1 4 8
2 4 9
3 6 7
4 7 9
5 7 8
6 9 9
7 6 8
8 5 8
9 7 8
10 8 8
11 9 8
12 8 8
13 8 8
14 7 8
15 8 7
16 6 8
Total 109 128
Mean 6.8125 8
(like moderately) (like very much)
Decision: if t stat > t critical two-tail, reject null hypothesis.

t-test: Two-sample Assuming Unequal Variances:

A B
Mean 6.8125 8
Variance 2.429166667 0.8
Observations 16 16
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 24
t Stat -2.643311706
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.007117661
t Critical one-tail 1.71088208
 P(T<=t) two-tail 0.014235321
t Critical two-tail 2.063898562

Since the t critical two-tail is greater than the t stat (-2.64 < 2.06), there is no sufficient evidence
to reject the null hypothesis; the texture of the sample with 40% eggplant (A) is not significantly different
from the 100% grounded beef (B) at 0.5 level of significance. This indicates that statistically, there is no
difference between the two samples in terms of texture. However, there were comments from the
panelists saying that the treated (A) patties were soft while the control (B) patties were firm and dry. This
is due to the difference in the chemical composition in each patties wherein treated (A) samples have
higher water/ moisture content and lower fat content compared to the control (B).

HYPOTHESIS

Ho: The taste of the treated sample (A) is not significantly different from the control sample (B).

Ha: The taste of the treated sample (A) is significantly different from the control sample (B).

Judge No. Taste

A B
1 8 8
2 7 8
3 9 8
4 8 9
5 7 8
6 7 9
7 7 6
8 8 8
9 6 8
10 8 7
11 8 8
12 7 9
13 7 9
14 7 9
15 9 5
16 7 7
 Total 120 126
Mean 7.5 7.875
(like very much) (like very much)
Decision: if t stat > t critical two-tail, reject null hypothesis.

t-test: Two-sample Assuming Unequal Variances:

A B
Mean 7.5 7.875
1.31666666
Variance 0.666666667 7
Observations 16 16
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 27
t Stat -1.065107404
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.148130027
t Critical one-tail 1.703288446
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.296260054
t Critical two-tail 2.051830516

Since the t critical two-tail is greater than the t stat (-1.065 < 2.052), there is no sufficient
evidence to reject the null hypothesis; the taste of the sample with 40% eggplant (A) is not significantly
different from the 100% grounded beef (B). Therefore, statistically, there is no difference in terms of taste
between the two samples. However, the comments of the panelists included that the treated (A) beef
patties have more “tortang talong” taste while the pure ground beef patties (B) has right meaty taste.

HYPOTHESIS

Ho: The overall acceptability of the treated sample (A) is not significantly different from the control
sample (B).

Ha: The overall acceptability of the treated sample (A) is significantly different from the control sample
(B).
 Judge No. Overall Acceptability
A B
1 8 8
2 8 9
3 7 8
4 7 8
5 7 8
6 6 9
7 7 6
8 7 8
9 7 8
10 8 8
11 8 8
12 7 8
13 7 9
14 8 9
15 8 8
16 7 8
Total 117 130
Mean 7.3125 8.125
(like moderately) (like moderately)
Decision: if t stat > t critical two-tail, reject null hypothesis.

t-test: Two-sample Assuming Unequal Variances:

Variable 1 Variable 2
Mean 7.3125 8.125
Variance 0.3625 0.516666667
Observations 16 16
Hypothesized Mean Difference 0
df 29
t Stat -3.466153201
P(T<=t) one-tail 0.000833036
 t Critical one-tail 1.699127027
P(T<=t) two-tail 0.001666072
t Critical two-tail 2.045229642

Since the t critical two-tail is greater than the t stat (-3.466< 2.045), there is no sufficient evidence
to reject the null hypothesis; the overall acceptability of the sample with 40% eggplant (A) is not
significantly different from the 100% grounded beef (B). Therefore, statistically, in terms of overall
acceptability, treated beef patties (A) and pure ground beef patties (B) are not significantly different. All
in all, the results indicate that the substitution of 40% eggplant in ground beef patties yield similar taste,
texture, appearance, and overall acceptability compared to 100% ground beef patties.
 III. REFERENCES

Belitz, H.-D., Grosch, W. and Schieberle, P. (2009). Food chemistry. Berlin: Springer.

Bohatala (2017). Chemical and Physical Properties of Meat. [WWW Document]. Bohatala.
URL https://bohatala.com/chemical-and-physical-properties-of-meat/ (accessed 05.10.23).

Bowker, B. (2017). Developments in Our Understanding of Water-Holding Capacity. Poultry

Quality Evaluation, 77–113.

Gardiner, A. and Wilson, S. (2018). Science of Meat: What Gives Meat its Color? |
Exploratorium. [WWW Document Exploratorium: the museum of science, art and human
perception. URL https://annex.exploratorium.edu/cooking/meat/INT-what-meat-color.html
(accessed 05.10.23).

Huff-Lonergan, E. (2006). Water-Holding Capacity of Fresh Meat. [WWW Document]. Pork

Information Gateway. URL https://porkgateway.org/resource/water-holding-capacity-of-
fresh-meat/ (accessed 05.10.23).

Knipe, L. (1987). Meat Emulsions | Meat Science Extension. [WWW Document]. Ohio State
University. URL https://meatsci.osu.edu/node/130 (accessed 05.10.23).

Li, K., McKeith, A.G., Shen, C. and McKeith, R. (2017). A Comparison Study of Quality
Attributes of Ground Beef and Veal Patties and Thermal Inactivation of Escherichia coli
O157:H7 after Double Pan-Broiling Under Dynamic Conditions. Foods, 7(1).

Pang, B., Bowker, B., Zhuang, H., Yang, Y. and Zhang, J. (2020). Research Note: Comparison
of 3 methods used for estimating cook loss in broiler breast meat. Poultry Science,
99(11),6287–6290.

Rodriguez-Jimenez, J., Amaya-Guerra, C., Baez-Gonzalez, J., Aguilera-Gonzalez, C., Urias-

Orona, V. and Nino-Medina, G. (2018). Physicochemical, Functional, and Nutraceutical
Properties of Eggplant Flours Obtained by Different Drying Methods. Molecules, 23(12),
p.3210.

Savell, J.W. and Cross, H.R. (1988). The Role of Fat in the Palatability of Beef, Pork, and Lamb.
www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov. National Academies Press (US).

U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE (2019). FoodData Central. [WWW Document]

fdc.nal.usda.gov. URL
https://fdc.nal.usda.gov/fdc-app.html#/food-details/174036/nutrients. (accessed 05.10.23).

Vet Study (2020). Properties of Fresh Meat | Physical and Chemical Properties of Meat.
[WWW Document]. Journey with ASR. URL
 https://www.journeywithasr.com/2020/11/properties-of-fresh-meat.html (accessed
05.10.23).

Wong, N.H. and Maga, J.A. (1995). The effect of fat content on the quality of ground beef
patties. Food Flavors: Generation, Analysis and Process Influence, Proceedings of the 8th
International Flavor Conference, 37, 1345–1351.

Xiong, Y.L. (2014). CHEMICAL AND PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF MEAT | Protein

Functionality. Encyclopedia of Meat Sciences, 267–273.

IV. APPENDICES
Table 1. Raw and Cooked Beef Patties

CONTROL TREATED
Raw Patty

Cooked Patty
Fig.1. Scoresheet and Beef Patty Samples for Acceptability Test