Pertanika 12(1), 33-41 (1989)

Determination of Meat Content in ProcessedMeats Using Currently Available Methods

A.S. BABJI, P.H. OOI and A. ABDULLAHDepartment of Food Sciences and Nutrition

Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia43600 Bangi, Selangor D.E., Malaysia

Key words: Meat content; methods; processed meats.

ABSTRAKEmpat kaedah digunakan dalam penentuan kandungan daging dalam produk daging terproses. Kaedahyangdirujukkan sekarang tidak begitu tepat dan payah diguna untuk pemonitoran mutu kandungan daging. Satukaedah yang tefmt dan praktikal diperlukan untuk menentukan kandungan daging dalam produk dagingterproses. Kaedah analisis pigmen jumlah dan mioglobin didapati lebih sesuai untuk penentuan kandungandaging pada burger lemlru tempatan, jika dibandingkan dengan kaedah Pearson (1975) atau Stubbs &More (1919).

ABSTRACTFour methods were used in the determination of meat content in local meat and meat products. Current methodsavailable are not reliable and applicable to routine monitoring and quality control by the regulating laboratoriesas well as the meal processing industry. A reliable and practical method is needed to monitor meat productsand ensure that they are meeting the minimum requirement of sixty five (65 %) percent meat content. Thetotal pigments and myoglobin technique was found to be applicable for determination of meat content inlocally processed beef burgers, when compared to the Modified Method of Stubbs & More (1919), and PearsonMethod (1975).

INTRODUCTIONThere has been a significant increase in theproduction of value added meat products andtheir selection in the chilled and frozen sec-tions of major supermarkets in Malaysia. In 1983the value of processed food originating fromlivestock exceeded 1,600 million MalaysianRinggit. Malaysia is expected to import about426,902 beef cattle to provide for 32,000 ton ofbeef by the year 1990 (Idrus 1981). Currently,the country uses about 114,500 ton per year,valued at about 300 million Ringgit (MalaysianBusiness 1980). Processed meats, especiallyhamburgers and frankfurters are common fooditems to many people in Malaysia as can be seenby the many fast food chains and local burgerstands. In the U.S.A., a hamburger is definedas chopped/minced meat with or without addedfat and spices (de Holl 1976). It should alsocontain not more than 30% fat. Wilson et al

(1981) described burger to contain 80% meatwith the rest comprising cereal, water bindingmaterials, flavours and spices. In Malaysia, thereis no clear definition and specifications forburgers. Manufacturers in their efforts to cutcost, often use meat substitutes such as cereals,soya proteins, groundnuts and lately mechani-cal deboned meat to formulate the hamburgersand frankfurters. The problem is: how doesone goes about quantifying meat content insuch products, so that consumers can be as-sured that such products contain a minimumof 65% meat as stipulated by the Food Law andRegulation (1985). A recent development inthe import of beef should also be mentionedin this content. Most beef was imported fromAustralia until 1983, when the governmentdecided to open its meat market to India. Today,due to its lower price, much of the beef (morethan 90%) is imported from India, usually from

AS. BABJI, P,H. OOI AND A. ABDULLAH

the fore quarters. It is cheaper than even theimported soya isolate and concentrate, whichwould lead one to think that manufacturerswould use more meat (at least 65%) so as notto contravene the food regulation. But this isnot so. Instead, manufacturers go for formula-tions consisting of Indian beef (40-60%), soyaproteins (10-80%), wheat/tapioca flours, me-chanically deboned meat and egg proteins tocome up with the least cost. Soya protein ispopular because of its high waterholding ca-pacity, good texture, and bulkiness in weightwhen hydrated. Therefore, in today's beefburger, the two major components are Indianbeef and soya protein concentrate. This paperis aimed at discussing currently available meth-ods for quantifying meat in such products andtheir usefulness in routine quality control checksfor the minimum requirement of 65% meatcontent for regulating purposes.

MATERIALS AND METHODSLocal beef type D (fresh cut) from class 'Bull'or Cow were purchased from a local market.Indian Beef (deboned) type F, forequarter waspurchased from a local meat processing com-pany. Local beefburgers (12 brandnames) wereobtained from the supermarkets. All meatsamples were completely homogenized, storedin airtight bottles in a freezer at -20°C untilready for analysis.

Standard Beef-Soya Cereal BlendBeef soya protein cereal blends were preparedto test the accuracy and percent recovery usingmethods currently available. The seven blendsprepared were as follow:

Indian Beef (80:20) SPC (1:2) Wheat flour

ABCDEFG

100908070605040

0515253545

55

0555555

Total protein from such blends would includemeat protein, soya protein and gluten protein.For calculation of meat protein, a correctionformula as suggested by Pearson (1975) wasused.

Meat protein = Total Nitrogen - (KaC +x 6.25 where

Ka = conversion factor of cereal to nitrogenC - total cereal measuredKb = conversion factor of soya proteins to

nitrogenS = total soya measured.

In this study a 70% protein content soya con-centrate was hydrated with 2 parts water mak-ing a Kb value equal to 0.7 x 1/3 x 1/5.71 =0.0409. Ka is given a value of 0.02 x 0.69with the assumption of cereal (wheat) contain-ing 69% carbohydrate and 2.0% nitrogen(Pearson 1975).

Determination of Total Pigment in Meat,Burger and Blend Standards (Rickansrud &Henrickson, 1967)

A 25g sample was blended in 100ml distilledwater for 3 minutes. The homogenate wascentrifuged at 2000 x g at 6°C for 15 minutesusing the MSE Coolspin Centrifuge. The super-natant was filtered through 3 whatman filterpaper. The precipitate was mixed with another100ml distilled water, centrifuged again andfiltered to finally obtain a 200ml of homo-genate solution.

A 20ml aliquot was pipetted into a 50mlErlenmeyer flask and 4mg potossium ferricya-nide added. Total pigment concentration inm g/g (wet weight) was calculated from absor-bance reading at 540nm using a Bausch andLomb Spectronic 20. For fresh meat samplescalculations were made based on wet weight,dry weight, wet weight fat free basis anddryweight fat free basis.

Calculation for total pigment was obtainedusing the formula:

Cone total pigment in mg/g wet weight

= Absorbance x K

where

wet weight sample

K - 17,000 x aliquot vol (L) x dilution factor

and E = Coefficient extinction myoglobin= 11.3 nM/L

34 PERTANIKA VOL. 12 NO. 1, 1989

DETERMINATION OF MEAT CONTENT IN PROCESSED MEATS USING CURRENTLY AVAILABLE METHODS

Determination of Myoglobin Content Usingthe Poel-Cyano Method (Topel, 1949)

The pH of meat samples was determined usingthe AOAC method (1980). A lOg sample washomogenized for 2 minutes in cold water mixedwith X ml INHySO4 in a waring blender.

X * (pH sample -5) x 0.35

The homogenate was centrifuge at 3000 rpmfor 2 minutes in a polyethylene tube (50ml)using the MSE Desk centrifuge. The supernatantobtained was transferred to a 50ml tube andheated slowly to reach a temperature of 54°Cafter which it was soaked in a water bath toreach 25°C. The homogenate was placed in a100ml beaker and the pH brought to 7.2 usingNa2 CO r The homogenate was transferred backto a 50ml tube and centrifuged for 10 minutesat 2500 rpm. The supernatant was filtered intoa 50ml Erlenmeyer flask and 2-3 small crystalsof potassium ferricyanide added. Absorbancewas read at 540 nm using the Spectronic 20.

Calculation of myoglobin (Mb) derived by Poel-Cyano (Topel, 1949):

mg Mb/g wet tissue = absorbance x 7.50

Results were expressed in mg/g wet weight forburger samples and the blend standards, whilefor fresh meat samples, calculations were madeon dry weight, dry weight fat free basis and wetweight fat free basis.

Methods Used for Quantitation of Meat ContentUsing Myoglobin Content as an Index The Poel-Cyano (Topel 1949) described above was usedto quantitate meat content. Calculation wasmade on a fat free dry weight basis to avoid thewide variation in fat distribution as well as addedfat in the samples.

Calculation:

Fat free meat = myoglobin content (mg/g)

where f} = conversion factor myoglobinin meat, i.e. amount of myo-globin in 100% Indian beefcalculated in mg/g fat freeweight basis

= 4.93 mg/g

Total meat content meat (fat free) and fatcontent.

The conversion factor for myoglobin tofat free meat (fl) is obtained from our analysisof myoglobin content in Indian beef. This isbecause most meat producers use Indian beefas the meat component.Using Total Pigment Content as an Index Thetotal pigment content was determined from ananalysis of the meat commonly used for beefburger processing, i.e. Indian beef.

Total pigments was expressed in mg/g forfree basis to avoid high variation from fat presentor added to beef burgers.

Calculation:

Total Pigments of fat free meat

= total pigments content (mg/g wet wt)

f2where f2 = conversion factor of total pig-

ments in meat i.e. amount oftotal pigment in 100% Indianbeef calculated in mg/g fat freeweight basis

= 6.31mg/gTotal meat = meat fat free + fat content

Quantitation of Meat Content Using Modified MethodofStubbs and More (1919) The original formulaby Stubbs and More (1919) does not accountfor nitrogen coming from cereal or soya pro-teins. The conversion factor of nitrogen to meatis 3.55 for beef (Analytical Committee 1963)and is reported on fat free basis. Pearson (1975)stated that correction is necessary for totalnitrogen if there is cereal inclusion. In thispaper, total nitrogen is corrected for cereal andsoya protein.

Assuming cereal is from wheat:

% cereal nitrogen = KaCr

where Cr = cereal content (AOAC, 1980)in %

Ka = conversion factor to nitrogen

= 0.02 x 0.69 with assumption cerealcontained 69% CH(,0 and cerealwheat contained 2% nitrogen(Pearson, 1975)

PERTANIKA VOL. 12 NO. 1, 1989

A.S. BABJI, PH. OOI AND A ABDULLAH

Assuming soya protein as the major non-meatprotein

% soya nitrogen = KbS

where S = Soya protein cone. (70% protein,1:2 soya:H2O (H2O)

Kb = conversion factor to nitrogen

= 0.70 x 1/3 x 1/5.71

= 0.0409

.*. meat nitrogen (fat free)

= 100 N t - KaCr- KbS

Fwhere,

Nt = total nitrogen

KaCr = nitrogen from cereal

Kbs = nitrogen from soya

F - %fat

Total meat = meat (fat free) + fatQuantitation of Fat Free Meat Using Modified PearsonMethod (1975) In some countries meat (fatfree) is used to indicate meat content in meatproducts. Pearson (1975) put forward someformulas for calculating fat-free meat, the mostcommon being:meat (fat free) = lOONt-FeNm (100-1)- (KfC)

Ff

LM = 100 Nt - FeNm (100- 1)FT" - KfC - KaS

Nm (1 - Fl/Ff)

where

Nt = % total nitrogen in productFe = % extracted fatNm = 3.55, conversion factor nitrogen to

beefFf = % extraneous fat max 90%Fl - % intramuscular fat max 10%Kf = % nitrogen in cereal, calculated on

dry CH2O basisC = % carbohydrate in product

An adjustment is needed in the aboveformula to take into account the nitrogencontribution from soya protein in a beef-soya-cereal added beef burgers.

Therefore

meat (fat free) or lean meat, LM;

Nm (1 -Fl/Ff)

where S= % soya protein cone. (70%) proteinhydrated 1:2 (SPC: H,O)

Ka = % nitrogen in soya protein cone.= 0.70 x 1/3 x 1/5.71

Statistical AnalysisAnalysis of Variance (ANOVA), F Values, andDMR tests were used in data processing, usingthe Statistical Analysis System (SAS).

RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONA proximate analysis was done on various meatcuts commonly used in the meat industry. Forcomparison purposes, we have included hearttissue, sirloin cut, Indian, beef (imported) andalso mechanical deboned beef (MDB). Table 1shows the major components from various meatcuts and sources. Protein content ranged from20-30%, with MDB at 4.5% protein. The fatcontent ranged from 1.4-8.4% with MDB at16.8%, Water content for most cuts is about75% and ash varies from 0.83-1.34%. Indianbeef contained very little fat (1.4%), a factor,which should be noted for several reasons later.The composition of MDB is also different thannormal meat cuts, fat (16%), protein, (4.5%)and ash at 2.80%. Its utilisation in locally proc-essed meat is increasing and therefore shouldbe monitored.

The wide variation in meat componentsmust be considered in methodologies for meatcontent determinatin. Pearson (1975) in hisformulation for lean meat suggested fat levelnot exceeding 10%, when determining leanmeat. Muscle fat has been reported to rangefrom 1-18%. In this study the fat content rangedfrom 1.4-8.4%.

Concentration of Pigment in MeatTotal pigment and myoglobin contents weredetermined in local meat cuts commonly usedin processing. Although myoglobin comprisesthree fractions, with different absorptions,Rickansrud & Henrickson (1967) noted thatthese differences can be obstructed by convert-ing them into the cyanmetmyoglobin form.Table 2 shows the concentration of myoglobinin local meat cuts on wet weight, and dry weight

36 PERTANIKA VOL. 12 NO. 1, 1989

DETERMINATION OF MEAT CONTENT IN PROCESSED MEATS USINC CURRENTLY AVAILABLE METHODS

TABLE 1Proximate composition of various meat cuts (lean)

Meat

Cuts1

IB*MDB*

MBCMBTMBB

MBSMBFC

MBFTMBFB

MBFSMBH

Protein

%

20.0bc

4.5d

18.9'2L5 ;u

20.0')(

20.0b'21.6"''

22.7*22.6*1

23.0*20.3'"

Fat

%

1.4de

16.8;t

4 .1 c d

8.4''

3.8cd

5.1C

4 .1 c d

L9dt"1.5dt"

0.3c

Moisture

%

76.3a

76.2"75.0*72.5"

77.3;1

76.5 '

76.2d

74.9"

74.5a

75.5*78.4a

Ash

%

0.83' f

2.86*1.04cd

1.04cd

1.12'

0.87d H

ISO***0.78'

1.34b

0.90d H

1.01ede

'Means of 2 samples-Means of 6 samples

*Means of 3 samples

IB = Indian BeefMDB = Mechanical Deboned

BeefMBC = Malaysian Beef, ChuckMBT = Malaysian Beef, TrimmingMBB = Malaysian Beef, BrisketMBS - Malaysian Beef, SirloinMBFC = Malaysian Buffalo, ChuckMBFT = Malaysia Buffalo, TrimmingMBFS = Malaysian Buffalo, SirloinMBH = Heart Muscle

Means with different superscripts within each columnindicate significant differences (P < 0.05)

TABLE 2

Myoglobin content of selected meat cuts (lean)

MeatCuts'

IB2

MDB*

MBCMBTMBB

MBS •

MBHMBFC

MBFT

MBFB

MBFS

WVt

weight

mg/g

4.86"td

6.19*h

4.25t(ilf

2.78'4 7 6bcd

6.38*

4.30c d e

3.40del

3.25' f

4.92h<

D,T

weight

20.38*26.02""

17.32' 'i('11.78^

12.34dr

20.28h '

29.91*18.07 (d

13.88<u*12.95d(-

20.081"1

Wet

fat free

4.93"7.44"

4.44h<

3.53h 'd

2.90d

5.02h

6.47;i

4.40hl ( i

3.34<fi

3.32'd

5.00h

Dry

fat free

; ; ^ , . . ,

88.69"

22.13'}(d

17.02(<t

15.15'1

25.961"

30.19''

19.82'H(i

16.36'fi

14.05d

21.40'""

1 = Means of 2 samples2 = Means of 6 samples3 = Means of 3 samples

Means with different superscripts within each columnindicate significant differences (P < 0.05).

on a normal and fat free basis. Myoglobincontent from sirloin cuts of beef and buffaloesare higher when compared to other cuts.Rickansrud and Henrickson (1967) reportedsimilarly high values in longissimus dorsi muscles.Heart tissue had 6.38 mg/g of myoglobin whiledeboned beef had 6.19 mg/g of myoglobin.Indian Beef had 4.86 mg/g while local buffalobrisket trimmings and chuck ranged from 2.78-4.30 mg/g. Indian beef (Buffalo, Type F)seemed darker in colour when compared tolocal beef cuts. The mean value of myoglobinconcentration for all cuts is 4.03 mg/g withstandard deviation of 1.11 mg/g.

A detailed study was investigated on themyoglobin content of Indian Beef. This was inview of the fact that most manufacturers usedIndian Beef as a major component in burgerproduction. Adjustment of meat on a lean, dryweight basis reduced the coefficient of variation,(Appendix 1) from 23.78% and 23.80% to 20.11and 20.13% respectively. Thus it is better toexpress the content of myoglobin on a dryweight basis. A total of six samples of Indianbeef were analysed to obtain a mean value formyoglobin concentration that is reliable for useas a reference. The concentration mean of 4.93mg/gm on fat free basis wet weight basis waschosen, because of the variable fat content invarious meat cuts and the fact that added fat ispart of the burger formulation in most instances.

The total pigment content in loal beefcuts ranged from 3.90-5.36 mg/g, local buffalo,3.96-5.27 mg/g; Indian Beef, 6.23 mg/g andbeef heart, 7.55 mg/g. (Table 3). Total pig-ment includes hemoglobin, myoglobin, cyto-chrome, vitamin B12, heme pigment andflavour. It should be noted that 95% of the ironin a piece of meat is in the myoglobin com-ponent (Clyesdale and Francis 1976). Otherfactors like genetics, muscle types, and handlingduring preslaughter could affect the pigmentcontent in meat. (Rosenman 8c Morrison 1965,Brown 1962, Livingstone & Brown 1980).

In using total pigment as an indicator ofmeat content, it was observed that total pig-ment on a fat free dry weight basis resulted inthe lowest coefficient of variation, (18.33%,Appendix 1). With total pigment, the conver-sion factor used to obtain meat content was

PERTANIKAVOL. 12 NO. 1, 1989

AS. BABJI, RH. OOI AND A. ABDULLAH

based on fat free wet weight basis of 6.31 m g /

TABLE 3Total pigments content in selected meat cuts

(lean)

MeatCuts

IBDNMMBCMBTMBBMBSMBHMBFCMBFTMBFBMBFS

Wetweight

m g / g

6.23al)

6.54lh

5.13'"4.82'K

3.90'5.26b<

7.55a

4.92b<

3.96<4.12(

5.27b<

Dryweight

m g / g

22.70<lh

27.50*tb

20.82ab

I7.58b

17.33h

22.38ab

32.36"20.67ilb

16.30l)

16.45"21.50*b

Wetweightfat free

m g / g

6.31"b

7.86"5.331"5.26'"4.06c

5.54'M

7.58i(

5.02bt

4.14*4.20<

5.35bc

Dryweightfat free

m g / g

27.781"93.78il

26.47b<

25.38b<

21.26f

28.66'"35.47b

22.68'"19.16*17.87*

22.90'"

Means with different superscripts within each columnindicate significant differences (P < 0.05).

The determination of total nitrogen is notable to give an indication of how much meatis in the mixed products such as hamburgers.This is shown in Table 4. However, data fromTable 4 and Figures 1 and 2 showed a strongcorrelation between meat content and myog-lobin and total pigment contents.

Determination of Meat Content in Soy-BeefStandard and Local Beef Burgers.Three methods were described earlier in theMethods and Materials section. A standard

mix-ture of meat soy patties was formulatedto test recovery and accuracy of the me thodsused.

Table 5 shows the recovery of mea t frombeef-soy mix standard, using myoglobin, totalpigments and Mg as indicators. T h e recoveryrate (means and standard deviations) are 97.6± 6.2, 96.6 ± 6.87 and 107.4 ± 12.5% respec-tively. Thus both myoglobin and total p igmentsare similar when used as indicators for testingrecovery of meat content . T h e Mg m e t h o d byStubbs and More (1919) is more variable, d u eto Mg being contr ibuted from other sourcesthan just meat itself. Table 6 shows the Mg,myoglobin and total p igment contents in localbeefburgers. The values of meat recovered usingthe pigments, Mg and a modified Pearson(1976) methods for meat quantification in localbeefburgers is shown in Table 7. T h e contentsof meat ranged from 22.3%-65% (myoglobin asindex) 23.5-71.1% (total p igments as index) ;26.7-71.7% (Mg as index)" and 12.3-53.9%(with modified Pearson me thod ) . From thesemethods, it can be concluded that myoglobinand total pigments are reliable indicators to usefor quantification of meat in mix productssuch as beef burgers and frankfurters.

Stubbs and More's (1919) me thod usingmagnesium is no t reliable because of the pre-sence of the e lement in soy protein and spices,which are commonly used in meat productsformulation these days. T h e weaknesses of themodified Pearson Method (1975) which is basedon Stabbs and More, has been discussed ear-lier.

TABLE 4Total nitrogen and pigment roncentration in standard bed-soya-cereal mix

Standard

ABCDEFG

Beef soya cerealMix1-2

(%)

100-0-090 - 5 - 5

80-15-570 - 25 - 560 - 35 - 550 - 45 - 540 - 55 - 5

Totalnitrogen

(%)

2.642.652.542.672.712.732.72

Myoglobin

(mg/g)

3.683.383.232.742.331.911.52

Totalpigment(mg/g)

4.724.284.043.512.902.311.90

1 Meat is 80% Indian Beef (lean) and 20% fat2 Textured soya protein

38 PERTANIKA VOL. 12 NO. 1, 1989

DETERMINATION OF MEAT CONTENT IN PROCESSED MEATS USING CURRENTLY AVAILABLE METHODS

= 0.97724= 0.910x + 4.47

r * 0.97361y > 0.928x - 2.61

MeatOontent

Recovered

-..

75

65

55

IS

IS

/

40 50

/

/

50

• /

/

/

9d 10*0

Meat Oontent (%)Meat Cbntent (Standard)

Fig. I : Regression m we showi ng men ( con ten I recoi wredfrom

beef-soya standard mix using myoglobin as an in-

dicator.

TABLE 5Recovery of meat from beef-soya standard

Standard Meat1 Meat-

ABCDEFG

92.591.2

103.5102.0106.096.091.8

92.790.3

101.6103.8103.891.890.0

92.094.1

105.9117.0127.5111.4

104.25

Mean,%Standarddeviation,Range, %

97.6 96.6 107.4

±6.2 ±6.87 ±12.591.8-106 90.0-105.8 92.0-127.5

1 Using myoglobin as an indicator2 Using total pigments as an indicator< Stubbs 8c More (1919) Method.

CONCLUSIONMethods using myoglobin and total pigmentscan be used to quantitate the meat content inmeat products. Its inherent variability in meattissue is well defined but its conversion to cyan-metmyoglobin form in this procedure reducesits heterogenous variability. Myoglobin is onlypresent in meat tissues and is more reliable

Fig, 2 : Regression curve showing meat content recovered

from beef-soya mix i(sing total pigme11 ts as indicator,

than total pigments, which contains hemoglo-bin and which could be contributed from blood.Although the amount of myoglobin varies withdifferent muscle types, for instance, it is higherin heart muscle, the amount is less variable in

TABLE 6Magnesium, myoglobin and total pigments

contents in local beefburgers

Brandnames1 Magnesium Myoglobin

(ppm)

TotalPigment(mg/g)

FIKAANGUSRAMLYWISMA BURGERPRINCEBIFFIKBAMIRULUTAMAMESTI-BESTHALFOMARSAIAMUKM

240"35 3*b

2311'286r<l

295 b t "

S52*h

351"h

243"259"

345*b«-_

2.03"1.761"2.121'2.03[>

0.39h

1.181

1.43'0.83*1.80*2.03b

1.13'1.58"'3.04"

3.1(T2.25'2.81'2.72'0.5h

1.53'2.10'1.26"2.51"2.83'1.502.081

3.91'

1 Means of 3 samples (wet weight)Means with different superscripts within each columnindicate significant differences (P < 0.05)

PERTANIKA VOL. 12 NO. 1, 1989

A.S. BABJI, P.H. OOI AND A. ABDULLAH

TABLE 7Meat and lean meat content of

local beef burgers using various methods

Brand *names

FIKAANGUSRAMLYWISMA BURGERPRINCEBIFFIKBAMIRULUTAMAMESTI-BESTHALFOMARSAIAMUKM*

Meat1

(

63.2ab

55.5cdt

64.4"59.6bc

22.3«34.9'52.3dr

34.8*56.1cd

52.8dt"51.6e

59,6W

65.0a

;%)

±2.4±3.0± 1.4±0.6±0.7±6.9± 1.9±3.6± 1.8± 4.1± 2.4±2.8±0.3

Meat2

(%)

71.P ± 1.655.4" ± 2.265.9b ± 1.861.5f ±2.323.5h ±2.035.7* ±0.256.5dr ± 2.035.0* ± 1.159Acd ± 2.356.4dt- ± 3.252.5' ±2.460.5c ± 0.465.3b ± 1.6

Meat1

(%)

55.5C + 3.726.7' ±5.9

n.r ± 1.855.r ±0.534.21' ±5.142.4d ± 3.855.9C ± 4.820.8H ± 0.432.7ef ± 3.048.8< ± 7.975.9a ± 4.064.9b ± 1.543.3d ± i.5

Lean meat4

(%)

34.9d( ± 4.1I5.3*h± 6.253.9;l ±2.039.7rd± 1.619.2f ± 2.931.1* ±2.233.8dt< ± 5.215.9*h± 1.912.3" ± 4.040.4cd ± 6.649.3iib± 1.838.7td ± 2.544.5b( ± 2.0

'Meat content using myoglobin as indicator1 Meat content using total pigments as indicator1 Meat content using Stubbs and More method (1919)1 Meat content using modified Pearson Method (1975)*' Mean n = 3

I KM* - Formulated Beef Burger

Indian Beef that is commonly used in the BurgerIndustry. It is felt that the determination ofmeat content in local beef burger can beachieved satisfactorily by formulating Indian

beef standards as a reference using myoglobinas an indicator.

The conversion factor using myoglobin asindicator is 4.93, a mean on a fat free basis for

Appendix 1Coefficient variation and standard deviation

of

Total pigmentWet weightDry weight

Wet weightFat freeDry weightFat free

MyoglobinWet weightDry weightWet weightFat freeDry weightFat free

i u p a n n _ p.lVlCd.Il, 11 — D

Indian beef samples

Mean1

Cone.

(™g/g)

6.2322.72

6.31

27.78

4.8620.38

4.93

21.66

SD

(™g/g)

1.329.06

1,36

5.09

1.154.10

1.17

4.36

CV

(%)

21.1239.86

21.60

18.33

23.7820.11

23.80

20.13

Appendix IICoefficient variation and standarddeviation of 8 selected

Total pigmentWet weightDry weightWet weightFat freeDry weightFat free

MyoglobinWet weightDry weightWet weightFat freeDry weightFat free

Mean, n = 82 Selected MeatIB, MDB, MBC,MBTC, MBFT, f

Mean1 Cone.

(mg/g)

4.9519.92

5.27

31.80

4.0316.59

4.28

26.86

CutsMBT, MBB,

vlBFC

meat cuts

SD

(mg/g)

1.003.85

1.30

25.29

1.114.89

1.45

25.16

CV{ Of \\ /O )

20.1819.33

24.58

79.52

27.5429.48

33.88

93.67

PERTANIKA VOL. 12 NO. 1, 1989

DETERMINATION OF MEAT CONTENT IN PROCESSED MEATS USING CURRENTLY AVAILABLE METHODS

Indian beef. This research concludes that thisconversion factor is suitable as a referencebecause other meat cuts with higher pigmentcontents are uneconomical for use in the burgermanufacturing industry.

REFERENCESANALYTICAL METHODS COMMITTEE. 1963. Nitrogen

Factors for Park. Analyst 88: 422.

AOAC. 1980. Official Methods of Analysis, 13th. Ed.Assn. of Official Analytical Chemists, Washing-ton. D.C.

BROWN, W.D. 1962. The Concentration of Myoglobin

and Haemoglobin in Tuna Fish./ Fd. Sri. 27: 26.

DeHoLL,J.C. 1976. Encyclopedia of Labelling Meatand Poultry Products, 3rd. Ed. Meat Plant Maga-zine. St. Louis.

[DRUS, A.Z. 1981. Food Production in Malaysia. Paperpresented at Amino Arids Nutrition Seminar, Aji-nomoto (M) Bhd. 3. Dec 1981.

LIVINGSTONE, DJ. and W.D. BROWN. 1980. The Che-

mistry of Myoglobin and its Reactions. Fd. Tech-nol, May 1981.

MALAYSIAN BUSINESS. 1980. Berita Publishing, K.L.

PEARSON, D. 1975. The Examination of Meat Pro-

ducts with Special Reference to the Assessment ofMeat Content. Analyst. 100 (1187): 73-81.

RICKANSRUD, D.A. and R.L. HENCRICKSON. 1967. Total

Pigments and Myoglobin Concentration in FourBovine Muscles. / Food Sri, 32: 57.

ROSENMANN M. and P. MORRISON. 1965. Seasonal

Angumentation of Myoglobin in Snowhoe Hare./. BioL Chem. 240: 3353.

STUBBS, G. and S. MORE. 1919. Estimation of ap-

proximate Quantity of Meat in Sausages and MeatPoste. Analyst 44: 125.

TOPEL, D.G. 1949. Determination of Myoglobin in

Pork Muscle. Adapted from Poel-Cyano Method.Ann.]. PhysioL 156: 44-51.

WILSON, N.R.P., EJ. DYETT, R.B. HUGHES, and C.R.V.

JONES. 1981. Meat and Meat Product: AffectingQuality Control. London: App. Sci. Pub.

(Received 29 October, 1988)

PERTANIKA VOL. 12 NO. 1, 1989 41