ACCEPTABILITY OF BEEF/PORK HAMBURGER PATTIES

by
ELIZABETH ANN PARIZEK, B.S.

A THESIS
IN
MEAT SCIENCE

Submitted to the Graduate Faculty

of Texas Tech University in
Partial Fulfillment of
the Requirements for
the Degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE

Approved

May, 1980
 i98'o
K'o.io^- ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Sincere appreciation is expressed to Dr. C. Boyd Ramsey, my

major professor and graduate committee chairman, for his guidance
and patience throughout my graduate study. Appreciation is expressed
to Drs. Ron Galyean, A. Max Lennon and Helen Brittin for their input,
review of this manuscript, and for serving on my graduate committee.
Thanks are expressed to Dr. J. Daryl latum for his counseling
and assistance with this research project. Thanks also are extended
to Drs. James R. Clark and Robert Bell for their assistance in the
statistical analysis of these data; to Mr, Don Phillips for his
invaluable aid in computer programming; to the panel members for
their participation; and to Randy Hines, Tom Hoes and the Texas Tech
Meats Lab crew for their assistance in the conduct of this research.
Special thanks are expressed to my dear friend, Roni Barnett,
for her encouragement and moral support and for typing this manuscript;
and to my fellow graduate students and friends for their encouragement.
A yery deep appreciation goes to my parents and family for their
understanding and support during my pursuit of a graduate degree.
Lastly, thanks to all who read this work; it was written as a
part of my degree requirements but for your benefit.

n
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii

LIST OF TABLES v

LIST OF FIGURES vi

LIST OF APPENDICES vii

CHAPTER

I - INTRODUCTION 1

II - LITERATURE REVIEW 4

III - ACCEPTABILITY OF BEEF/PORK HAMBURGER PATTIES 7

Summary 7

Introduction 8

Experimental Procedure 9

Consumer panel 11
Sensory panel 12
Statistical analysis 13

Results and Discussion 14

Consumer Panel 14

Sex of consumer 14
Raw appearance 14
Tenderness 17
Juiciness 17
Flavor 20
Preferences 22
Laboratory Panel 22
Color score and appearance acceptability ... 22
Cooking losses 26
Tenderness 28
Juiciness 28
Flavor 28
Overall acceptability 28

m
TABLE OF CONTENTS - dOwUviUidd

Conclusions ^^
LITERATURE CITED ^^
APPENDICES ^^

IV
 LIST OF TABLES

Table P^ge

1. Percent of beef and pork lean and fat used in the

experimental patties •'•^
 LIST OF FIGURES

Figure Page

1. Patties representing each of the 17 treatment blends . . . . 15

2. Consumer panel mean scores for the effect of lean source

and fat source combinations on appearance acceptability
of raw patties 16
3. Consumer panel mean scores for the effect of lean source
and fat source combinations on patty tenderness 18
4. Consumer panel mean scores for the effect of lean source
and fat source combinations on patty juiciness 19
5. Consumer panel mean scores for the effect of lean source
and fat source combinations on patty flavor
acceptability 21
6. Consumer preferences for each blend within treatment
pairs 23
7. Laboratory panel mean values for the effect of lean source
and fat source combinations on raw patty color 24
8. Laboratory panel mean scores for the effect of lean source
and fat source combinations on raw patty appearance
acceptability 25

9. Mean values for the effect of lean source and fat source
combinations on total cooking losses 27
10. Sensory panel mean scores for the effect of lean source
and fat source combinations on patty tenderness 29
11. Sensory panel mean scores for the effect of lean source
and fat source combinations on patty juiciness 30
12. Sensory panel mean scores for the effect of lean source
and fat source combinations on flavor acceptability . . . 31
13. Sensory panel mean scores for the effect of lean source
and fat source combinations on patty overall
acceptability 32

VI
 LIST OF APPENDICES

Appendix Page

A. Consumer panel registration form 37

B. Consumer panel instructions and sample score sheet .... 38

C. Sensory panel score card 42

D. Consumer panel means for the effect of lean source on

sensory properties of beef/pork patties 43
E. Consumer panel means for the effect of fat source on
sensory properties of beef/pork patties 43
F. Consumer panel means and standard deviations for the effect
of lean source and fat source combinations on appearance
and sensory properties 44

G. Consumer preferences for each blend within treatment

pairs 45
H. Laboratory panel means and standard deviations for the
effect of lean source and fat source combinations on
patty color, appearance and total cooking losses . . . . 46

I. Laboratory panel means and standard deviations for the

effect of lean source and fat source combinations on
patty flavor, juiciness, tenderness and overall
acceptability 47

VI 1
 CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

In recent decades the l i f e s t y l e s and eating habits of Americans

have changed. People now depend on fast-food restaurants and con-

venience foods for a large portion of t h e i r d a i l y meals. The num-

ber of franchised restaurants in the U.S. increased from about

36,300 to 66,000 from 1974 to 1979 (Anon., 1979). Many of these

restaurants and convenience foods r e l y upon ground beef as a major

protein and n u t r i e n t source. In recent years fast-food outlets

have marketed about one-third of the ground beef consumed in the

U.S. (USDA, 1979). This large and growing " f i x e d " demand has re-

sulted in a dramatic increase in ground beef consumption.

Ground beef t r a d i t i o n a l l y has been an inexpensive, v e r s a t i l e ,

easily prepared meat item. I t s v e r s a t i l i t y and ease of preparation

account for much of i t s popularity. Currently, however, ground beef

is not so inexpensive. Supplies of processing beef are at reduced

levels while demand remains high. The r e s u l t has been a 37'o increase

in the price of ground beef from 1977 to 1978 (USDA, 1979). Further-

more, the USDA has projected a 16% decline in ground beef production

in 1979.

The major cause of t h i s reduced supply of ground beef is the

livestock cycle. The c a t t l e industry is in a rebuilding phase.

Fewer cows, bulls and non-fed animals are available for slaughter.

This reduced supply of processing beef, combined with a growing re-

mand, makes i t necessary to examine alternatives to the a l l - b e e f

1
hamburger to satisfy the demand for fresh ground meat products.

Several possible alternatives exist. One is simply to eat less

meat; decrease demand rather than increase supply. However, the

per capita daily consumption of all cooked red meats in the U.S.

in 1978 was 81 g per day, half the recommended daily allowance (Meat

Board Reports, 1979). A second alternative is to increase supply.

Ways to increase supplies include increasing importation of beef,

use of extenders such as textured soy and vegetable proteins, and

incorporation of poultry meat into existing ground beef products

to produce a mixed meat product.

Yet another alternative the red meat industry could consider

is the combination of meat from other species with fresh ground beef.

Since beef is more expensive than most of the other readily-available

red meats, blending beef with red meat from other species could re-

sult in a less expensive ground product and decrease price fluctua-

tions during times of beef shortages. Per capita consumption figures

for meat in the U.S. show a clear preference for beef (USDA, 1979),

indicating a potential for increasing consumption of other red meats.

Data indicate a similarity in muscle flavor among species.

Hornstein and Crowe (1960) confirmed that the basic meaty flavor

was water-soluble and essentially the same for all species, whereas,

the characteristic species flavor and aroma appeared to arise from

the lipids. Hornstein et^ a]_. (1963) showed the similarity in the

nature of lean extracts from beef and whale muscle and distinct dif-

ferences in flavor due to variation in the lipid fraction. Wasserman

and Talley (1968) further demonstrated the role of fat in species

differences in flavor.

Consumer acceptability of a blended, ground meat product prob-

ably is influenced by the proportion of meat from each species.

Particularly, the level of fat contributed by each species may have

a pronounced effect on flavor desirability.

The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of lean

source and fat source on the cooking losses and acceptability of

fresh ground meat patties composed of various combinations of lean

and fat from beef and pork.

 CHAPTER II

LITERATURE REVIEW

Food acceptance is a function of consumer perceptions and atti-

tudes expressed in a comprehensive evaluation of product character-

istics. Poor flavor is a major cause of product rejection (Mosko-

witz and Chandler, 1978), but flavor is only one characteristic of a

food. Consumers also consider other sensory (texture, aroma, juici-

ness, tenderness), nutritional (vitamins, calories, protein), psy-

chological (appearance, satiety) and economic factors when selecting

food items.

Some characteristics of meat products are of greater concern

than others. When meat from different species is mixed, flavor

and color are the two factors likely to be affected most. Francis

(1977) suggested that flavor and texture are secondary in importance

to color (and general appearance) in food; if the appearance is

unattractive, a potential consumer may never experience the other

two major attributes (flavor and texture).

Rhodes (1978) stated that texture is of importance to consumers.

When texture is satisfactory, juiciness and flavor are immediately

considered and eating satisfaction then depends primarily on flavor.

Flavor satisfaction especially affects the consumption of muscle

foods (Sink, 1979). The flavor of these foods is highly species

dependent and affects consumption patterns. Beef and pork are simi-

lar in flavor desirability (Smith ^ a_l_., 1974) and the more preferred

of the animal muscle foods, as indicated by U.S. per capita consump-

tion (AMI, 1978).

Meat flavor research has revealed two basic components: the

lean portion which contributes the basic "meaty" flavor and the fat

portion which contributes the characteristic species flavor and aroma.

Crocker (1948) reported that raw beef, pork, lamb and chicken all

seemed to have a weak, fundamental, blood-like flavor. Flavors dis-

tinctive of the species, food and environment of the animal were

superimposed on this serum flavor.

Kramlich and Pearson (1958) first demonstrated that the charac-

teristic flavor of meat was water-soluble. Hornstein et^ aj_. (I960)

and Hornstein and Crowe (1961) later confirmed that the basic meaty

flavor was water-soluble and essentially the same for all species;

whereas, the characteristic species flavor and aroma appeared to

arise from the lipid portion of muscle. Lipids from lamb, beef and

pork were heated in vacuum and in air to perceive the aroma of each.

The odor perceived for the lamb, beef and pork lipids when heated

in a vacuum were "mutton", "apple-like" and "cheese", respectively;

and "mutton", "deep-fat-fried" and "bacon" when the respective lipids

were heated in air. These results indicate that beef has a more

subtle and less characteristic aroma than either pork or lamb and

gives some basis for the wide acceptance and desirability of beef.

Hornstein and Crowe (1960) found that the lean portions of

pork and beef, when heated, contributed an identical meaty flavor.

Beef and whale muscle samples were used by Hornstein et^ aj_. (1963),

who also demonstrated the similarity of lean extracts and that varia-

tion in the lipid fraction of muscle resulted in the distinct flavor

differences in meats.

Wasserman and Talley (1968) found that only about one-third

of their panelists could correctly identify roasted lean of beef,

pork, lamb and veal but that the addition of fat greatly improved

the number of correct identifications by panel members. They also

found that beef and lamb were identified significantly less often

if fat was absent. The addition of 10% fat significantly increased

correct identifications. They further reported that the addition

of beef fat to veal did not significantly increase the identifica-

tion of veal as beef; however, addition of pork fat to veal resulted

in many identifications of veal as pork. This number was not sig-

nificantly different from the number of correct identifications

of the all-pork meat.

These results indicate that the role of fat in producing the

characteristic meat flavor is not the same for all species. The

lean component provides a similar basic meat flavor among species.

This similarity in basic meat flavor offers promise for the blending

and mixing of muscle from different species in fresh ground meat

products and the acceptance of such products by consumers.

 CHAPTER III

ACCEPTABILITY OF BEEF/PORK

HAMBURGER PATTIES

Summary

The acceptability of ground meat patties of various blends of

beef (B) and pork (P) lean (L) and fat (F) was evaluated. Fat and

lean were held constant at 20% and 80%, respectively. Each of three

fat combinations was mixed with each of five lean combinations. Fat

combinations used were 15 BF, 5 PF; 10 BF, 10 PF; and 5 BF, 15 PF.

Lean combinations were 80 BL; 60 BL, 20 PL; 40 BL, 40 PL; 20 BL,

60 PL; and 80 PL. In addition, 100% beef and 100% pork patties

were used for a total of 17 treatment mixtures.

Patties were evaluated in duplicate by 80 consumer panelists

and a laboratory panel. Appearance of raw patties containing more

beef tended to be superior to that of patties containing more pork.

An interaction (P<.05) was found between lean source and fat source

for raw appearance and tenderness. Pork fat tended to smear more

than beef fat and gave the patty a fatter appearance. The five

levels of BF and PF did not produce the same tenderness trends

within the five BL/PL combinations. All-pork patties were more

tender and juicy than all-beef patties. Beef/pork blends were

equal or superior to all-beef patties in juiciness, tenderness and

flavor. When raw appearance and the palatability traits were con-

sidered, the 60 BL, 20 PL, 10 BF, 10 PF and 60 BL, 20 PL, 15 BF,

5 PF patties (70% beef, 30% pork and 75% beef, 25% pork, respectively)
 8

were judged more acceptable. There were no significant differences

in cooking losses between treatments. These results indicated that

mixtures of beef and pork were superior in palatability to all-beef

patties.

Introduction

Ground beef traditionally has been an inexpensive, versatile,

easily prepared meat item. Currently, processing beef supplies are

low while ground beef demand remains high, suggesting that alterna-

tives to the all-beef burger should be examined.

An alternative the red meat industry could consider is a com-

bination of beef and pork. Since beef usually is more expensive

than pork, blending beef with pork could result in a less expensive

product and increase ground meat supplies. The consumer accept-

ability of such a mixed-meat product would be of great importance.

The role of fat in producing the characteristic meat -lavor

and aroma is not the same for all species (Wasserman and Talley,

1968); but the basic meat flavor is water-soluble (Kramlich and

Pearson, 1958), similar among species, and is due to the lean com-

ponent. The characteristic species flavor and aroma of meat appear

to arise from the lipid portion of muscle (Hornstein et_ a_l_., 1960;

Hornstein and Crowe, 1960 and 1961; and Hornstein et_ a]_., 1963).

Consumer acceptability of a blended, ground meat product prob-

ably is influenced by the proportion of meat from each species.

Particularly, the level of fat contributed by each soec^ies may have

a pronounced effect on flavor desirability.

 The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of lean

source and fat source on the cooking losses and acceptability of

ground meat patties composed of various mixtures of lean and ^at

from beef and pork.

Experimental Procedure

One 199-kg heiferette, a 126-kg sow and two market hog (65

and 68 kg) carcasses were deboned and physically separated into

lean and fat. Additional lean and fat were separated from whole-

sale pork picnics and beef plates. Lean and fat from each species

were each coarse-ground through a breaking plate with 1.3-cni open-

ings, randomly sampled and tested for fat content by Babcock pro-

cedures (A.O.A.C. , 1965) .

Blends were formulated to contain the desired levels of lean

and fat from each species and a lean:fat ratio of about S0:2G.

Seventeen mixtures of beef and pork lean fat were used (table 1 ) .

The coarse ground lean and fat were weighed and mixed in a

vat mixer to obtain the desired species combinations and l e a m f a t

ratios. Each blend then was ground through a plate with .3-cm

openings. The ground meat was hand-mixed and then formed into pat-

ties weighing about 113 g by a Hollymatic patty machine.

Patties were frozen at -30 C for at least 7 days and then were

packaged in pairs for consumer evaluation. A 1.3-cm hole was drilled

in one patty of each pair to differentiate between them. Patries

were paired with a mate of the opposite composition. Beginning on

opposite ends of the treatment listing, 100^^ beef (80 B.'_, 20 BF)
 10

TABLE 1. PERCENT OF BEEF AND PORK LEAN AND FAT USED

IN THE EXPERIMENTAL PATTIES

Fat free muscle, % Fat, % Total proportions, %

Mixture Beef Pork Beef Pork Beef Pork

1 80 0 20 0 100 0

2 80 0 15 5 95 5
3 80 0 10 10 90 10
4 80 0 5 15 85 15

5 60 20 15 5 75 25
6 60 20 10 10 70 30
7 60 20 5 15 65 35

8 40 40 15 5 55 45
9 40 40 10 10 50 50
10 40 40 5 15 45 55

11 20 60 15 5 35 65
12 20 60 10 10 30 70
13 20 60 5 15 25 75

14 0 80 15 5 15 85
15 0 80 10 10 10 90
16 0 80 5 15 5 95

17 0 80 0 20 0 100
 11

and 100% pork (80 PL, 20 PF) patties were paired together; 95% beef,

5% pork (80 BL, 15 BF, 5 PF) patties were paired with the 95% pork,

5% beef (80 PL, 15 PF, 5 BF) patties, etc. The 50% beef, 50^^ pork

(40 BL, 40 PL, 10 BF, 10 PF) patties were paired separately with

both the 100% beef and the 100% pork patties for a total of 10 pair-

ings.

Patties remained frozen until they were evaluated by consumer

or trained sensory panelists. Maximum freezer time was 16 weeks

for patties evaluated by the consumer panel and 8 weeks for patties

evaluated by the sensory panel.

Consumer panel. Patties were evaluated in duplicate by 80 con-

sumer panelists over a 12-week period. Panelists were selected from

volunteers and ranged in age from 14 to 60 years and in occupation

from students and secretaries to farmers and electricians. The

registration form is shown in appendix A. One-hundred consumers

were selected but complete information was received from only SO

(40 males and 40 females). Panelists were not informed of the nature

of the study other than that they were to evaluate "ground meat pat-

ties formulated from various levels of lean and fat."

Patties were identified as "patty with hole" or "patty without

hole" and by a code number on each package. Patties were distributed

to consumers and were stored in the consumers' homes before prepar-

ation and evaluation. Panelists were given instructions and score

sheets with the patties (appendix B ) . Broiling was recommended as

the cooking method but was not mandatory. Panelists were instructed

to use a separate utensil for each patty if a cooking method other

 12

than broiling was used. They were asked to cook and evaluate each

patty in the same manner. Bread and condiments could be eaten with

the patty if desired.

Panel members rated each patty for acceptability of raw appear-

ance, tenderness, juiciness and flavor on an 8-point hedonic scale

where 1 = dislike extremely and 8 = like extremely for appearance

and flavor; 1 = extremely dry and 8 = extremely juicy for juiciness;

and 1 = extremely tough and 8 = extremely tender for tenderness

(appendix B ) . Panelists also indicated which patty of the pair

was preferred.

Sensory panel. A six-member trained sensory panel also evalu-

ated each of the 17 patty blends in duplicate. The panel consisted

of four men and two women selected and trained as described by

Cross ^ aj_. (1978). Four or five blends were evaluated at each

panel session.

The frozen patties were placed on a rack 4.5 cm above the heat-

ing coils of a Farberware open hearth electric broiler and broiled

for 8 min on each side, about medium-well doneness. The temperature

of the broiler was not thermostatically controlled but was about

145 C at the grill surface.

One-fourth patty was served to each panelist under a dim red

light to reduce bias due to differences in browning and appearance

caused by the differences in patty composition. Patties were evalu-

ated for flavor, juiciness, tenderness, and overall acceptability

on an 8-point, verbally-anchored hedonic scale where 1 = dislike

extremely and 3 = like extremely for flavor and overall acceptability;

 13

1 = extremely tough and 8 = extremely tender for tenderness; and

1 = extremely dry and 8 = extremely juicy for juiciness (appendix C ) .

Cooking losses were determined.

Raw patties were scored independently by five persons for

appearance acceptability and color. An 11-point descriptive scale

was developed by combining the beef color standards (Ray £t al.,

1977) and the standards for pork color (Rust and Topel, 1969).

Color descriptions and their numerical scores were: 10 = very dark

red, 9 = dark red, 8 = moderately dark red, 7 = slightly dark red,

6 = red, 5 = moderately light red, 4 = very light red, 3 = grayish

pink, 2 = slightly pale grayish-pink, 1 = pale grayish-pink, and

0 = yery pale grayish-pink.

Statistical analysis. A 5 x 5 factorial design was desired

but, due to intramuscular lipids, such a design was not possible.

Therefore, a 3 x 5 factorial design was used with three levels of

fat (5, 10 and 15%) and five levels of lean (0, 20, 40, 60 and 80%)

from each species. Controls were 100% beef and 100% pork (table 1 ) .

Consumer panel data were analyzed by split plot procedures

(Steel and Torrie, 1960). The nature of the patty pairings resulted

in more observations for the 50% beef, 50% pork patties than for

the other blends. Scores for each blend were averaged for each

panelist. Sex of consumer was a within subjects variable and spe-

cies fat proportion and species lean proportion were the between

subjects variables. Preference data were analyzed by Chi-square

procedures.
 14

Laboratory data were subjected to analysis of variance proce-

dures (Snedecor and Cochran, 1967). Sources of variance were lean

source, fat source and their interaction. Duncan's mean separation

test was used when a significant main effect was found (Steel and

Torrie, 1960). The predetermined acceptable level of probability

was 5% for all analyses and is used throughout this discussion.

Results and Discussion

Consumer Panel

Sex of consumer. Sex of the consumer panelists had no signi-

ficant effect on ratings and preferences for the different blends

of beef and pork lean and fat.

Raw appearance. The experimental blends are pictured in fig-

ure 1. Lean and fat main effects are given in appendices D and E.

Consumer panel means for appearance acceptability of raw patties

are shown in figure 2 and appendix F. Means for the blends ranged

from 4.7 for the all-pork to 6.3 for all-beef and 90% beef (80 BL,

0 PL, 10 BF and 10 PF). Appearance was acceptable (scored at least

"like slightly") for all treatment combinations except the all-pork

patties. Patties containing equal amounts of beef and pork lean or

higher levels of beef lean than pork lean were rated more desirable

in raw appearance than patties containing more pork than beef.

Patties containing a high percentage of beef most closely resembled

the all-beef patty, the norm, and therefore were more acceptable.

A significant lean X fat source interaction was found. Pork

fat tended to smear more than beef fat during grinding and patty
 15

Figure 1. Patties representing each of the 17 treatment blends

/ '
 16

LEAN. % FAT >

Beef Pork Beef Pork
80 0 20 0
80 0 15 5 wmmm
80 0 10 10 ' ' ' ' • • • ' ' * - ' ' - " - -

80 0 5 15 1 ' ' • • • • • ' - • -

60 20 15 5 <* f i t M •
^
«« M i« «< J If
60 20 10 10
60 20 5 15 ssa
40 40 15 5
40 40 10 10
40 40 5 15

20 60 15 5
20 60 10 10
20 60 5 15
l^-«N'1fi*;::-;*l~"l:..":";:.i|:|!:ll;i,;"l;:i:':';;P|
0 80 15 5 iii;i'' '"'•'' '•'•'• •' ' ' 1 1 1 . " . •'•'•' • 1 1 1 ' i l

0 80 10 10 iii|i;!:''!:;'i:''V'!ll'r;,::'^r:i;'^'J'';::.^!.ii:ii'H;'''l!l!!l|
0 80 5 15 l!'li;!iiiil!ir./':;:::':!ii'ii-''!:i;-:..v^i!fe!:;i!'::':i'[|
0 80 0 20 illi!i!i!i'''!!!|l''i!'!''"!i.'!i-'-'''''!lii!:!'!!'l!;i;ii'-

1 3 4 5 6 8

APPEARANCE

Figure 2. Consumer panel mean scores f o r t h e e f f e c t o f l e a n source and

f a t s o u r c e c o m b i n a t i o n s on appearance a c c e p t a b i l i t y o f raw p a t t i e s .
 17

formation. This, combined with the lighter color of the pork lean,

gave the patties containing high levels of pork a fatter appearance

even though the total fat content was near 20'o in all blends.

Tenderness. Main effects for tenderness are given in appendices

D and E. Figure 3 and appendix F present consumer panel mean scores

for patty tenderness. Beef/pork patties containing 25 to 75'^ pork

generally were equal or superior to all-beef patties in tenderness.

All-pork patties were judged most tender (5.9); 95'^ beef, 5% pork

patties were least tender (5.2). Mean tenderness scores for all

patties were within an acceptable range (at least "slightly terder").

A significant lean x fat source interaction was found for patty

tenderness. Blends containing either all-beef or all-pork lean but

having fat contributed by the other species (85 to 95% beef or 85

to 95'o pork) received lower scores than the other blends.

Juiciness. Both lean source and fat source significantly af-

fected patty juiciness (appendices D and E ) . Although these dif-

ferences were statistically significant, they were not large enough

to be of practical importance.

Consumer panel mean scores for patty juiciness are presented

in figure 4 and appendix F. Mean scores for the blends ranged from

4.8 for the 95% beef to 5.5 for both the 70% beef and the 70% pork

patties. All blends except 95% beef, S% pork and 85% beef, IS^i

pork were rated equal or superior to the all-beef patties in juici-

ness. Beef/pork lean combination patties generally were slightly

juicier than patties containing only beef as the lean source.

 18

LEAN. % FAT, %
Beef Pork Beef Pork
80 0 20 0
80 0 15 5
80 0 10 10
80 0 5 15

60 20 15 5
60 20 10 10
60 20 5 15

40 40 15 5
40 40 10 10
40 40 5 15

20 60 15 5
20 60 10 10
20 60 5 15

0 80 15 5 WME
0 80 10 10 '!;;|;-'i'!lll;;,H;li;r'
0 80 5 15 i|i:"M.i;i:':i;i:i^::'!''''''!':vi'!i'"''i :i:'iii|ii-;il!|li;i|i'
0 80 0 20 ill!l!il:!ll!':;ii:ll:!!!!i'l!l!liii!!!!"!'!l;ii.. •-•" I------ •- • f- -1-

1 8

TENDERNESS

Figure 3. Consumer panel mean scores for the effect of lean source and
fat source combinations on patty tenderness.
 19

LEAN. % FAT . *
Beef Pork Beef Pork
80 0 20 0
80 0 15 5
80 0 10 10 III m 11! I ' •!
80 0 5 15 * * * * * •»--* * ^ - * * ' - * * ^ » * ^ - - - ^ » - ^ - ^ - * - - . - ' ^ . - i

60 20 15 5
60 20 10 10
60 20 5 15

40 40 15 5
40 40 10 10
40 40 5 15

20 60 15 5
20 60 10 10
20 60 5 15

0 80 15 5 !!!!g!!?!!-'r!!l'i''!'!!!!i^i'l!ilililil!i;Fl^
0 80 10 10 iii:i:iii::.::''"'!;;!!!!'=i;i!:;iii.!:--ii'^
0 80 5 15 i:l''!;i'^ii;!!l•i•'!il:l<!l!':!i'l•!;'!;iii:'^h;;!;i!!l|i|^!|l
0 80 0 20 ^^M^i^^M^^ 'a;|li,i;:,;lii!il;;:!,;|!ill|i|!i

JUICINESS

Figure 4. Consumer panel mean scores for the effect of lean source and
fat source combinations on patty juiciness.
 20

Flavor. Patty blends containing 25 to 65% pork were equal or

superior to all-beef patties in flavor desirability (figure 5 and

appendix F ) . Flavor of patties containing less than 30% beef gener-

ally was rated less desirable. Means for the blends ranged from

5.6 to 6.0. Differences probably were not sufficiently great to

be of practical significance.

Lean source had a significant effect on flavor desirability

(appendix D) but fat source did not significantly affect flavor

(appendix E ) . Mixtures of beef and pork lean generally were equal

or superior to all-beef-lean blends in flavor desirability. All-

pork-lean blends generally received lower ratings than patties con-

taining only beef or beef/pork mixtures as the lean source, but

differences were small.

These results do not agree with those of Hornstein and Crowe

(1960), Hornstein et_ al- (1963) and Wasserman and Talley (1968),

who found a basic meaty flavor due to the lean portion of muscle

and characteristic species differences in meat flavor and aroma

contributed by the fat portion. The role of fat in producing char-

acteristic meaty flavors was not the same for all species. Their

studies dealt with whole muscle and the extraction or separation

of the lipid component from the lean portion. The mixing of both

lean and fat from different species was not examined. (Wasserman

and Talley [1968] injected extracted lipids from other species into

veal but did not mix both lean and fat from different species.)

In this study, intramuscular fat was not extracted from the

muscle because such a product would have little practical value.

 21

LEAN. % FAT .•^

Beef Pork Beef Pork
> • • • • > I • I » >^ I 1 ^ I

80 0 20 0
80 0 15 5 • fcM^I^^^<^<^

80 0 10 10
80 0 5 15 • * ' ' • •

60 20 15 5
60 20 10 10
60 20 5 15

40 40 15 5
40 40 10 10
40 40 5 15
- ' 1 T • • T T T T I T T T T I ' I T T T TT T T T T T T
20 60 15 5
20 60 10 10 —.
20 60 5 15 1

0 80 15 5 PI!!';S'i'i!!iil;!i!"ll!!!|!|P'!^!;;;!i:-^^
0 80 10 10 j!l!|•i:l^:!;liit;::•|^rJ;:.|.ll^::::.il:;J:'lil:!l;;,li!;|i,:!!:iil;ii1i;^
0 80 5 15 |jl^l:Iiill'|'!n;•;!!r:|1•li!i|';!|;ilill'^:ji^il|l:;||l|iH!'';:'iiiiii||j
0 80 0 20 |j!iiiii;iiii!lii::;i::i:!ii!i:ii!'!:i!!iii:;i:!''-!^^^

8
FLAVOR

Figure 5. Consumer panel mean scores for the effect of lean source and
fat source combinations on patty flavor acceptability.
The lipid content of the lean was 10 to 12^^ and was considered in

determining total fat content. Lipids inherent within the muscle

could have been sufficient to impart species flavor and thus asso-

ciate these small flavor differences with the lean source and neg-

ate the effect of varying fat source. Although differences in

flavor desirability were statistically significant, the differences

were not large enough to be of practical significance. Many con-

sumers did not find any flavor difference between the patties with-

in a pair and suggested that the patties were the same.

Preferences . Consumers' expressed preferences for beef and/or

pork were not consistent across blend combinations. Chi-square

analysis indicated that an interaction between the level of lean

and fat from each species affected patty acceptability (figure 6 and

appendix G ) . The 50% beef, 50% pork patties were more preferred

than either the all-beef or the all-pork patties. A general trend

was found for patties containing more beef than pork to be pre-

ferred over patties of the opposite composition. About one-fourth

of the consumers considered the patties equal or expressed no pre-

ference.

Laboratory Panel

Color score and appearance acceptability. Laboratory panel mean

scores for color and appearance acceptability are presented in figures

7 and 8 and appendix H. Both lean source and fat source significantly

affected color score and appearance acceptability. As the percentage

of pork in the blends increased, color changed from dark red (;.9)

to light grayish-red (4) and grayish-pink (1.4). Patiies in wnich

 23

Pair PREFERENCE FOR A NEITHER PREFERENCE FOR B

80BL.20BF 80PU20PF
1 y//////////////////.
8 0 B L . 1 5 B F . 5PF 80 PL. 5 BF, 15 PF
2 ''//////////A :
S O B L I O B F , lOPF 80 PL, 10 BF. 10 PF
3 V//////////////A
8 0 B L . 5 B F . 15PF 8 0 P L 1 5 B F , 5PF
4 y/////////////////. mmimmm^
6 0 B U 2 0 P L 1 5 B F . 5PF 2aBL.60PU5BF. 15PF
5 y////////////////////. •\1.t\y'••:", '"_•• .>-'.'l-\.* ••;' - V - • V ' - '

6 0 B L . 2 0 P U 1 0 B F , 10 PF 20BL,60PL,10BF,10PF
6 ^^<^^^<^;^^<^^;^^^:^:^^;<^
6 0 B U 2 0 P L 5 B F . 15 PF 20BU60PL15BF,5PF
7 y/////////////////y
4 0 B U 4 0 P U 1 5 B F , 5PF 40BU40PL, 5BF. 15PF
8 y/////////////y -%;^:^'•••-V,-•l-^,•v..-,;w,r:.i•.
4 0 B U 4 0 P U 10 BF. 10 PF 80 PL. 20 PF
9 y////////////////////. A . - - . ' r ' i . - - . - - . ••.-.-•.'••••J

4 0 B L , 4 0 P U 1 0 B F , 10 PF 80BL.20BF
10 y////////////y////////A
10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

CONSUMER PREFERENCE. %

Figure 6. Consumer preferences for each blend within treatment pairs

 24

LEAN. % FAT. %
Beef Pork Beef Pork
80 0 20 0
80 0 15 5
80 0 10 10 I '•'•'• I 1 w
80 0 5 15 •. • ^ . • . . . » J . t « A . . ' . ' . ^.^..'^t*.'. A , f ' f ' f ' . . ' • ' . ' .

60 20 15 5
60 20 10 10
60 20 5 15

40
40
40
40
40
40
15
10
5
5
10
15
gisr
W/////////////A
20 60 15 5
20 60 10 10
20 60 5 15

0 80 15 5 •^.^'-^fiffllilP^siS
0 80 10 10 ^}iyicniii:'..:!iii:i|i!!i!i!!!ingi
0 80 5 15
0 80 0 20

6 6
COLOR

Figure 7. Laboratory panel mean values for the effect of lean source
and fat source combinations on raw patty color.
 25

LEAN. % FAT',*^
Beef Pork Beef Pork
, y P P P T P ,

80 0 20 0 NrfMN^w^^h^^A^hrf

80 0 15 5 F I T T'* f T f ^ ^ T ^ ^ "
80 0 10 10 4-i-i-J IT T'f T » > • > * *•»•*•••• m'o'fw'w^^'p'^m^'^m^^tmi
80 0 5 15

60 20 15 5
60 20 10 10
60 20 5 15

40 40 15 5
40 40 10 10 • •

40 40 5 15 y//yyyyyy//y//y///2
20 60 15 5 a
20 60 10 10 'X
20 60 5 15 7

0 80 15 5 I!lli!!iil::i;i:F':::::':':",;i!||!i^iIi^
0 80 10 10 iiii:;,.;iM|:''->:,r:;,l::i!iH|j|!.,|!J;|i!i;|;i|ii|'|';ii|

0 80 5 15 ii'''^!!^!'"'"i-':'^'^!!liill!lll!!;i;iii!»iiliii!!
0 80 0 20 lEIlMiiiiii

2 3 4 5 6 8
APPEARANCE

Figure 8. Laboratory panel mean scores for the effect of lean source
and fat source combinations on raw patty appearance acceptability.
 26

beef comprised one-half or more of the lean portion were moder-

ately dark red (8) to moderately light red (5) in color and gen-

erally were more acceptable in raw patty appearance than patties

containing high percentages of pork. Mean appearance scores for

the blends ranged from 7.4 for the all-beef to 2.8 for the all-

pork. Beef/pork mixtures were not significantly different from

one another and were intermediate to the all-beef and all-pork

patties in appearance acceptability.

Cooking losses. No significant differences were found in

total cooking losses among the treatment blends (figure 9 and ap-

pendix H ) . All patties were cooked an equal length of time to an

estimated medium-well doneness. However, some variation in the

degree of doneness of the patties was noted. A tendency was ob-

served for the all-beef patties and patties containing high per- ^

centages of beef to appear less fully cooked than the other patties. ?

This could be partially due to variation in patty thickness or

differences in lean color. The pork fat was softer than the beef

fat at the time patties were blended and stacking caused some pat-

ties containing high percentages of pork lean and fat to be slightly

flatter and larger in diameter. All-pork patties and patties with

a high pork content were less cohesive and sometimes crumbled on

the grill. These patties also had a lighter-colored appearance

after cooking, both internally and externally, and did not brown

as much as the beef when cooked for equal lengths of time. Pro-

longed cooking (in preliminary work) resulted in more browning

but the patties were then overdone.

 27

LEAN. % FAT. %
Beef Pork Beef Pork
^^^^^^v
80 0 20 0
80 0 15 5 ; • ' •'

80 0 10 10 •« I n i l II T'^^TTTTTrrTTT'l I I I I I I r f T T T T T T T m ' r !
80 0 5 15 •**.<*^A^»^^«^

60 20 15 5
60 20 10 10
60 20 5 15

40 40 15 5 y//yy/yy/y////////z^
40 40 10 10 ^
40 40 5 15 y/yyyyyyyyy/yyyyy^<^m.
///i

20 60 15 5 1
20 60 10 10 T I I
20 60 5 15

0 80 15 5 jr.;! |'|!:-'.,h!ilii'i!i"lf,:.'i'iii|i;ii 4.1 ;'.^ n"-!; jjiji

0 80 10 10 frl"i-V;::;;|,l;:;:,iji;;.:i!:;.;::H;i!!'!:;i.|;

0 80 5 15 1
0 60 0 20 " ' " ' " ' ' ' • ' ' " • ' ' " • :':':iiiiin

28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36
COOKING LOSS. %

Figure 9. Mean values for the e f f e c t of lean source and f a t source

combinations on t o t a l cooking losses.
 28
Tenderness. Patty tenderness was significantly influenced
by fat source (figure 10 and appendix I ) . Tenderness ratings ranged
from 5.3 for the 75% beef to 6.8 for the all-pork patties. All
blends were judged acceptable in tenderness. Ratings generally
were higher for the blends having 50% or more of the fat portion
as pork fat. Many of the beef/pork blends were equal or superior
to the all-beef patties.
Juiciness. Lean source and fat source did not significantly
affect patty juiciness (figure 11 and appendix I ) . Juiciness scores
ranged from 5.1 for the 65% beef to 6.0 for the all-pork patties. I:
Beef/pork mixtures with 50 or 75% of the lean portion as pork were ''
equal or superior in juiciness to the all-beef patties. ]
*
Flavor. Mean sensory panel ratings for flavor acceptability
are illustrated in figure 12 (appendix I ) . Flavor of all blends ^
y
was judged desirable. Beef/pork blend patties (scores ranged from i
5.3 to 6.3) were not significantly different from either the all-
beef (6.2) or the all-pork (5.2) patties in flavor desirability.
All-pork patties tended to have the lowest scores for flavor desir-
ability. Lean source and fat source did not significantly affect
flavor desirability.
Overall acceptability. Sensory panel means for patty overall
acceptability are presented in figure 13 and appendix I. All blends
were judged acceptable. Mean scores ranged from 5.0 to 5.3 and
were highest for the 100% beef; 90% beef, 10% pork; 30% beef, 70%
pork; and 50% beef, 50% pork patties. No significant differences
were found among any of the treatment combinations for overall
 29

LEAN. % FAT .•H.

Beef Pork Beef Pork
rr^^ » T f 1
80 0 20 0
80 0 15 5
80 0 10 10
80 0 5 15

60 20 15 5
60 20 10 10
60 20 5 15

40
40
40
40
15
10
5
10
'mmmA^ym
Z
^^^^mm
40 40 5 15 yy/yyAyy/yy/z/z/z.^AA
20 60 15 5 in
I * -

20 60 10 10 X
20 60 5 15

0 80 15 5 iii!!lliilil:i,i::lii!!ite!g!i!::ii!i'l::^^^^
0 80 10 10 iii!;!pil|l;:':";!i:!-n:;|-i''-M!;ii|!ii:'-:.vi'!f lA
0 80 5 15 |liilillii!!li:!:;;ii!!'i:.^iii;ii!:i;ii!!ii';:ii"-::i;!;,vr''i'^
0 80 0 20 llll!lllll!"!i!|!i'^i:':ii!iiii;iJiil!ii!liil^^^^
8

TENDERNESS

Figure 10. Sensory panel mean scores for the effect of lean source and
fat source combinations on patty tenderness.
 30

LEAN. % FAT r*>^

Beef Pork Beef Pork
I I I I I I I 1 I ,

80 0 20 0
80 0 15 5
80 0 10 10 WW^T"^. I I ' . ' . I I I I I I > I I I I I I I I

80 0 5 15 I'l'l'l'l'l'l'l'l'l'l'l'll'l'l'l'l'l'll'l'l'l'l I

60 20 15 5
60 20 10 10
60 20 5 15

40 40 15 5 wyyyyy^yyy/yz/zzA
40 40 10 10 ^^^^^^^^^^/^^
40 40 5 15 wyyyyyyyyyyyyy/Tm
20 60 15 5 0
•n

20 60 10 10
20 60 5 15
-I
4
Hl|n|mii|||iiiMiiiMiiii!..:|M.jrr!i,,i:''/'!ij!;.iii!iii.v,;iiii
0 80 15 5
0 80 10 10 Il|iir''i.;ii::,: ;';:!i:ii!:'";:'i:',;'!'.:'i':' •^'^:i:;':';!i:-';"''i;|'!i|!
0 80 5 15 !!iii:ii:::i!iili!iir!'-|i''''':i>v'';:'i,i:-

0 80 0 20 ^i^;'m^^^^rmmB:mm
8

JUICINESS

Figure 11. Sensory panel mean scores for the effect of lean source and
fat source combinations on patty juiciness.
 31

LEAN. % FAT r"^

Beef Pork Beef Pork
I r I I I I 11 I I I I I n • I I I I I I I I

80 0 20 0 ^lM^,l^..^^',«^i».<'i»',l".l'.l',»i>»i<i^iiiM» «•.!.• 11 "•i.'iiiirlili'i'ijiW.

80 0 15 5
80 0 10 10
80 0 5 15

60 20 15 5
60 20 10 10
60 20 5 15

40 40 15 5
40 40 10 10
40 40 5 15
0
20 60 15 5 J
20 60 10 10
20 60 5 15
»•« ;l!:;;l]ll!l!|l!lil|!|l|:;|^:,,l:;i!ill!
0 80 15 5
0 80 10 10 ffl!-'i';.iiiii:!i'';"';i'iiiii!iii:;iiip!ri^iiii'-.i:^":
0 80 5 15 gij^"'i!iii:i^j::iiiJ!i;;;,;Hi:t:';!;iiii'ii';-:'''"'!i:!''i'
0 80 0 20 iiii!iii!!iiiinii!ii'!!il!!!iiliiiiiii:i!!:li! SM
8

FLAVOR

Figure 12. Sensory panel mean scores for the effect of lean source and
fat source combinations on flavor acceptability.
 32

Beef Pork Beef Pork

80 0 20 0 rnmmy:
80 0 15 5 mm:ym •x•:';•:•:::':':':':':^•.'.^':- : :|

80 0 10 10 mmyzm •:MMmyvy: \'\

80 0 5 15 mrnm: '.•'.•'.•'.•'.•'/.•'.•'.•'.•'.•'..•:'.•' • J

60 20 15 5 ^^^^^^
60 20 10 10 !^^8Sx V V V V » ^ « ^ 'V"»*V

60 20 5 15 ^^^^^^^1^^^^^

40 40 15 5 y//////AyyyyyyyyyA
40 40 10 10 y//////// yyyyyyyyyyyyy
40 40 5 15 y///////y yyyyyyyyyyy.

20 60 15 5
20 60 10 10
20 60 5 15

0 80 15 5 Kii!i''ill!i i!!!iiiil!!?!!ii|i|l!i!!l!!3t!il|
0 80 10 10 ii'i"..;,>:.:,;,iMi!i: l!|!!:!'i;Hir!lii|l!i!!li!'''liil|lMlllll|i'iF
0 80 5 15 fci;n!:v.,-ni!ii!iii i:'i.::;;i!i'!iiiiiii!iii!!|i!!!|;!'!i;i;ii|
0 80 0 20 ^lliiliiiiiiiitii!;!:; i,i!iiiiiiiiiiiiii!iililliilii!iiii:i!!iii;i::^"

OVERALL ACCEPTABILITY

Figure 13. Sensory panel mean scores for the effect of lean source and
fat source combinations on patty overall acceptability.
 33

acceptabi1ity.
Conclusions

Consumers found beef/pork mixtures equal or superior to all-beef

patties for sensory properties (tenderness, juiciness, flavor), total
cooking losses and overall acceptability. Color and appearance ac-
ceptability of the patties also were desirable but not superior to that
of the all-beef patties. Consumers found adding pork increased the
tenderness and juiciness of hamburger patties. The 75% beef, 25% pork
and the 50% beef, 50% pork patties were rated superior tc all-beef
patties in all palatability attributes. Such mixtures are easily made
and could support the consumption of beef during shortages, reduce patty
costs and present an alternative to nonmeat products. While these
results may be unique to the West Texas area, it seems they wculd apply
particularly well in areas where the per capita consumption of pork is I
%
P
higher than it is in this area. X
Federal inspection regulations carefully control contamination of

beef and beef processing equipment with pork to guard against trichi-

nosis. Precautionary measures such as time/temperature controlled

freezing of fresh pork products can destroy any trichina present.

Labeling of fresh beef/pork hamburger would be important. Handling

procedures would be similar to that of fresh pork sausage.

 LITERATURE CITED

A.O.A.C. 1965. Official Methods of Analysis (10th E d . ) . Associa-

tion of Official Agricultural Chemists, Washington, D.C.,
p. 238.

Anonymous. 1979. Beef Business Bulletin. National Cattlemen's

Association. Denver, Colorado. Vol. 3, No. 11.

AMI. 1978. Meat facts. American Meat Institute. Washington,

D.C.

Crocker, E. C. 1948. Flavor of meat. Food Res. 13:179.

Cross, H. R., H. R. Bernholdt, M. E. Dikeman, B. E. Green, W. G.

Moody, R. Staggs and R. L. West. 1978. Guidelines for cookery
and sensory evaluation of meat. Am. Meat Sci. Assoc, and
National Livestock and Meat Board.

Francis, F. J. 1977. Color and appearance as dominating sensory

properties of food, iji^ Sensory Properties of Foods. Appl .
Sci. Publ. LTD. London.

Hornstein, I. and P. F. Crowe. 1960. Flavor studies on beef and

pork. J. Agr. Food Chem. 8:494.

Hornstein, I. and P. F. Crowe. 1961. Fatty acid composition of

meat tissue lipids. J. Food Sci. 26:581. 4

Hornstein, I., P. F. Crowe and W. L. Sulzbacher. 1960. Constitu-

ents of meat flavor:beef. J. Agr. Food Chem. 8:55.

Hornstein, I., P. F. Crowe and W. L. Sulzbacher. 1963. Flavor

of beef and whale meat. Nature 199:1252.

Kramlich, W. E. and A. M. Pearson. 1958. Preliminary studies on

meat flavor. Food Res. 23:567.

Meat Board Reports. 1979. National Livestock and Meat Board.

Chicago. Vol . XII.

Moskowitz, H. R. and J. W. Chandler. 1978. Consumer perceptions,

attitudes, and trade-offs regarding flavor and other product
characteristics. Food Technol. 32:34.

Ray, E. E., J. Butler, R. Shaw and J. Marchello. 1977. Standards

for beef color. New Mexico State Univ. Ag. Exp. Sta. Res.
Rep. No. 336, Las Cruces, NM.

34
 35

Rhodes, D. N. 1978. Meat flavor and consumer acceptability.

ijl Progress in Flavour Research. Appl. Sci. Publ. LTD.
London.

Rust, R. E. and D. G. Topel. 1969. Standards for pork color,

firmness and marbling. Iowa State Univ. Coop. Ext. Serv.
PM 452, Ames, lA.

Sink, J. D. 1979. Symposium on meat flavor factors influencing

the flavor of muscle foods. J. Food Sci. 44:1.
Smith, G. C , M. I. Pike and Z. L. Carpenter. 1974. Comparison
of the palatability of goat meat and meat from four other
animal species. J. Food Sci. 39:1145.

Snedecor, G. W. and W. G. Cochran. 1967. Statistical Methods

(6th E d . ) . Iowa State Univ. Press, Ames, lA, p. 250, 299.
Steel, R. G. D. and J. H. Torrie. 1960. Principles and Procedures i
of Statistics. McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York, p. 107, ^
232.

USDA. 1979. Livestock and meat situation. Economics, Statistics,

and Cooperative Service. USDA, Washington, D.C.
•it

Wasserman, A. E. and F. Talley. 1968. Organoleptic identification -

of roasted beef, veal, lamb and pork as affected by fat. J
J. Food Sci. 33:219. 7
APPENDICES

36
 37

APPENDIX A. CONSUMER PANEL REGISTRATION FORM

Texas Tech University is conducting research in meat science.

One of our current studies involves ground meat patties formulated
from various levels of lean and fat. All of the meat is USDA in-
spected.

We are interested in determining which blend of products is

most acceptable to consumers. Meat patties will be provided free of

charge. Patties will be prepared and eaten by the consumer and a

questionnaire completed for the patties. Testing will be twice

weekly for ten weeks. Family members should be at least of senior

high school age to participate in this study.

If you are willing to participate as a member of this consumer

panel, please fill out the form below for each family member who

will participate.

Thank you.

Name Age

Address Zip

Occupation Phone

Please circle appropriate response:

Sex: Male Female

Annual family income: $10,000 or less $10,000 - $20,000

$20,000 - $30,000 $30,000 or more

Education completed (indicate highest level achieved):

Grade 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Years of college 1 2 3 4 more than 4

Are there any limitations to the kind of meat you can eat?
If so, please indicate
 38

APPENDIX B. CONSUMER PANEL INSTRUCTIONS AND SAMPLE SCORE SHEET

Consumer Panel Participant:

Thank you for agreeing to participate in this meat research

project. We are determining the consumer acceptability of ground

meat patties of varying formulations. All of the meat is USDA in-

spected. You are one member of a 100-member consumer panel which

will provide the acceptability information - appearance, tenderness,

juiciness, flavor and preference for one of the patties over the

other. It is OK if only the cook scores the raw appearance.

The quarter-pound patties will be packaged in pairs and frozen

when you receive them. One patty of each pair contains a hole which

was made for identification purposes. Each pair of patties must be

eaten at the same meal - one half of each patty by each consumer

panelist. Please cook the patties in your home, halve them and rate

them on the accompanying form. An example of the rating form is

attached.

It is preferable, but not mandatory, that you broil the patties.

Broiling is the most desirable cooking method for evaluation of these

patties because this cooking method prevents mixing of the grease

from one patty with that of the other. If the patties are fried,

please fry the patties in separate pans so that grease mixing does

not occur. Patties may be thawed in the refrigerator before cooking

or may be cooked from the frozen state.

The meat may either be tasted plain or in a sandwich. To pro-

vide the best information, please cook and taste each patty in the
 39

Appendix B - {contlnue,d]

same manner.

A total of 20 pairs of patties will be distributed to you.

Target date for completion of the study is the third week in July.

This timing allows 10 weeks and necessitates preparing and sampling

patties at least twice weekly. If you wish to complete the taste-

testing more rapidly, please do so. We ask only that you do not

taste more than one pair of samples at a meal and that you do not

taste more than two pairs per day.

If you have questions, please contact us at the Texas Tech

Meats Lab - 742-2804. Ask for Elizabeth or Becky.

Thank you for your help.

 40

Appendix B - (coyvtA,nu2,d]

Use one sheet for each person. Number on outside of package_

Name Today's Date ^__
Cooking Method Used
After sampling each patty of the pair, please circle the appropriate
response to indicate your like/dislike of each patty and which of the
pair is preferred. Please include any comments you may have.
Patty Without Hole Patty With Hole
Raw Appearance Raw Appearance
Like extremely Like extremely i
Like very much Like very much •!
Like moderately Like moderately
Like slightly Like slightly i
Dislike slightly Dislike slightly .!
Dislike moderately Dislike moderately ^
Dislike wery much Dislike very much j
Dislike extremely Dislike extremely .
Tenderness Tenderness S
Extremely tender Extremely tender
yjery much tender Very much tender
Moderately tender Moderately tender
Slightly tender Slightly tender
Slightly tough Slightly tough
Moderately tough Moderately tough
\Jery much tough ^e^ry much tough
Extremely tough Extremely tough
Juiciness Juiciness
Extremely juicy Extremely juicy
Very juicy ^^"^V J^icy ^
Moderately juicy Moderately juicy
Slightly juicy Slightly juicy
Slightly dry Slightly dry
Moderately dry Moderately dry
Very dry Very dry
Extremely dry Extremely dry
 41

Appendix B - [dOYVtlyitxzd]

Patty Without Hole Patty With Hole

Flavor Flavor
Like extremely Like extremely
Like very much Like MQvy much
Like moderately Like moderately
Like s l i g h t l y Like slightly
Dislike s l i g h t l y Dislike siightly
D i s l i k e moderately Dislike moderately
D i s l i k e very much Dislike yevy much
D i s l i k e extremely Dislike extremely

Overall, which patty do you prefer? (circle one)

Patty without hole Patty with hole Neither (no difference)

Comments:
 42

en
;z > , <U (J
>.
•r- >> f— 4-> 3 O)
c ja >»-c: -M fO E E
03 o -i->
<u >>-c: s- a;
+-) OJ 3 r— C7> a; >> -M
s-
o a. E E f O -(-) -r- "O %~
O) OJ &. J Z r— O OJ X
o <j s. >^ <u • cn UI E > O)
u •M
&-
X <U o r -
•o r-
OJ <U OJ O)
<:
(U > E 0 0 - : * : . i < : J>^
.^
^_
r— (U a; O) QJ 1 — r— t— r—
(t3 J : < : j x : .^ . i ^ CO CO (A CO
&_
(U _ j - J _1 _J Q Q o O
>
o CO r->. CO LO « ^ r o CM r—1
>^
-M
•r—
-o r— r—
r»- •r-
fO J3 r- J3 >^
s- 03 J3 >) <u
a (U 4-> 3 a>
> Q. 3 O) -Q
o o;
o
O 3 -Q
-Q
3
S- >^ 3
U
o U 3 '—
03 S- -C
3 -o s- ^-^ CD J3 -=
o -o S. c a; J = 3 jQ 01
O OJ - a CD O 3 3
c/1 0) 3 -^ i- O
O

XJ CD >i
CO OJ >> >> CU 3 r—
CO CO OJ O) 4-> O OJ
a. OJ E +-> (O 4-> •t-> E
s= ^ s- OJ
>» OJ C71 CT> OJ
0) a> i . - a • ! - •r- - O >^ s-
o -a X OJ o 1— .— o S_ -l->
-a <D X
LU > 2: oo CO :E.
CO 1 ^ CO CD «;*• CO C\J
00

>>
>^ u
u •r—
>> >,
X •!— 3 0 S- >^
I—• CO 3 •1-
•'-J >,-o ^
I/) •f-s 3 S_ -0
o OJ >» >> • O X J >>
r—
LU u r—
>> •f— CU >^ > i CU >•><—
>»
O.
Q- CO
<u • 3• - J 4-> 1 — 1 — 4-> S - CU

<
CO
E ro +J +J (T3 -a E
O) a; ^ x: JC s> CU
c u >» 0) O ) C3^ CU >> i .
•r- + j
s- T3 • r - T — "TO S> -M
U X a> 0 1 — . — 0 Qi X
•r— LU > ^" c/) 0 0 2 : 2 > LU
3
r? CO r^ CO LO « ^ r o

o U r—
>
«3 >-) I— +-) 3 (U
>>-£= r— +-> fO E E
r—
u OJ > > - £ ! i_ CU
CU 3 +-) r— c n CD >» s-
E E (O -t-> -r- - 0 S- -4-)
CU s_ ^ r - 0 CU X
%. >> CU • CJ> CO E > O)
4-> ^ T3 I ^
X CU 0 f— CU OJ (U O)
(U > E CO - ^ . : i ^
• r - T—
CU s- <u <u <u - 0i ^) 1CO— I— r^ r—
r— o; 0 .u .^ .^ CO CO CO
O) Q.-0 >
E O <a _ J _ I —1 - J 0 0 Q Q
re O r—
O U- CO r*« CO LO ^ r CO C\J 1—1
 43

APPENDIX D. CONSUMER PANEL MEANS FOR THE EFFECT OF LEAN SOURCE

ON SENSORY PROPERTIES OF BEEF/PORK PATTIES

Lean sources %^ Consumer panel scores

Beef Pork Appearance Tenderness Juiciness Flavor

80 0 6.2 5.5 5.1 5.7

60 20 6.0 5.8 5.4 5.9
40 40 5.9 5.7 5.3 5.9
20 60 5.6 5.7 5.3 5.7
0 80 5.0 5.6 5.3 5.6

Lean expressed on a basis of 80 as 100% of the lean portion.

APPENDIX E. CONSUMER PANEL MEANS FOR THE EFFECT OF FAT SOURCE

ON SENSORY PROPERTIES OF BEEF/PORK PATTIES

Fat source Consumer panel scores

Beef Pork Appearance Tenderness Ju iciness Flavor

20 0 &^3 5.7 5.1 5.8

15 5 5.8 5.6 5.2 5.8

10 10 5.9 5.7 5.4 5.8

5 15 5.6 5.6 5.2 5.7

0 20 4.7 5.9 5.4 5.6

Fat expressed on a basis of 20 as 100% of the fat portion

 44

APPENDIX F. CONSUMER PANEL MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS

FOR THE EFFECT OF LEAN SOURCE AND FAT SOURCE
COMBINATIONS ON APPEARANCE AND
SENSORY PROPERTIES

Lean , /o Fat, % Consumer panel scores

Beef Pork Beef Pork Appearance Tenderness Juiciness Flavor

80 0 20 0 6.3 5.7 5.1 5.8

80 0 15 5 6.1 5.2 4.8 5.6
80 0 10 10 6.3 5.6 5.3 5.8
80 0 5 15 6.0 5.4 5.0 5.8

60 20 15 5 6.1 5.8 5.4 5.9 ,

60 20 10 10 6.1 5.8 5.5 6.0 !
60 20 5 15 5.8 5.7 5.3 5.8 ;

40 40 15 5 5.9 5.6 5.2 5.9

40 40 10 10 5.9 5.8 5.4 6.0 1
40 40 5 15 5.9 5.7 5.3 5.8 :

20 60 15 5 5.8 5.8 5.3 5.8 'i

20 60 10 10 5.5 5.7 5.5 5.6 i
20 60 5 15 5.4 5.7 5.2 5.7 1

0 80 15 5 5.1 5.6 5.2 5.6

0 80 10 10 5.4 5.6 5.4 5.8
0 80 5 15 5.0 5.4 5.1 5.6
0 80 0 20 4.7 5.9 5.4 5.6

Standard deviation* .70 .75 .85 .81

'Error degrees of freedom = 624 for all main effects

 45

APPENDIX G. CONSUMER PREFERENCES FOR EACH BLEND

WITHIN TREATMENT PAIRS^

Preferences, number
Pair Blend A Blend B A B Neither

100 B 100 P 68 61 25

95 B, 5 P 95 P, 5 B 41 59 44

90 B, 10 P 90 P, 10 B 62 56 41

85 B, 15 P 85 P, 15 B 65 50 36

75 B, 25 P 75 P, 25 B 71 48 27

70 3, 30 P 70 P, 30 B 84 27 38

65 B, 35 P 65 P, 35 B 63 ^5 38

8 55 B, 45 P 55 P, 45 B 50 53 38

50 B, 50 P 100 P 72 J/ 35

10 100 B 50 P, 50 B 34 78 38

^X^ = 74.23; d.f. = 18

 46
APPENDIX H. LABORATORY PANEL MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
FOR THE EFFECT OF LEAN SOURCE AND FAT SOURCE
COMBINATIONS ON PATTY COLOR, APPEARANCE
AND TOTAL COOKING LOSSES

Lean , /o Fat, % Laboratory panel scores

Beef Pork Beef Pork Cooking losses Color Appearance

80 0 20 0 34.36 6.3 7.4

80 0 15 5 32.10 7.2 6.4
80 0 10 10 29.74 8.9 5.6
80 0 5 15 35.30 6.7 5.5

60 20 15 5 34.40 6.7 6.0

60 20 10 10 31.49 6.5 5.6
60 20 5 15 32.86 6.1 5.6

40 40 15 5 32.97 5.7 5.7

40 40 10 10 28.61 5.6 6.2
40 40 5 15 34.01 5.1 5.3

20 60 15 5 31.11 5.0 5.8

20 60 10 10 34.67 4.8 5.4
20 60 5 15 31.05 4.1 5.0

0 80 15 5 32.14 3.9 4.5

0 80 10 10 31.08 4.2 4.9
0 80 5 15 31.60 4.3 4.9
0 80 0 20 31.24 1.4 2.8

Standard deviation' 3.673 654 .580

Error degrees of freedom = 17 for all main effects.

 47
APPENDIX I. LABORATORY PANEL MEANS AND STANDARD DEVIATIONS
FOR THE EFFECT OF LEAN SOURCE AND FAT SOURCE
COMBINATIONS ON PATTY FLAVOR, JUICINESS,
TENDERNESS AND OVERALL ACCEPTABILITY

Laboratory panel scores

Leai1, % Fat., h Overal1
Beef Pork Beef Pork Flavor Juiciness Teinderness ac ceptability

80 0 20 0 6.17 5.42 5.92 6.00

80 0 15 5 6.33 5.17 5.58 5.75
80 0 10 10 5.75 5.58 6.09 6.00
80 0 5 15 5.59 5.42 5.84 5.67

60 20 15 5 5.67 5.17 5.25 5.35

60 20 10 10 5.58 5.58 6.09 5.84
60 20 5 15 5.75 5.09 6.00 5.75

40 40 15 5 5.25 5.50 5.83 5.34

40 40 10 10 5.84 5.75 6.17 5.92
40 40 5 15 5.75 5.67 5.92 5.67

20 60 15 5 5.50 5.50 5.92 5.75

20 60 10 10 6.00 5.42 5.92 6.00
20 60 5 15 5.34 5.42 5.75 5.75

0 80 15 5 5.42 5.50 5.75 5.42

0 80 10 10 5.50 5.92 6.00 5.84
0 80 5 15 5.25 5.25 5.67 5.34
0 80 0 20 5.17 6.00 6.84 5.75

Standard deviati on^ 0.62 .53 .28 .34

Error degrees of freedom = 17 for all main effects.