FST 4822LABORATORY FOR CHEMISTRY AND

TECHNOLOGY OF PLANT AND ANIMAL PRODUCTS

MEAT BASED LAB: PROCESSING OF BEEF BALLS

GROUP : GROUP 6GROUP MEMBERS :TEY CHEE SENG 137999SITI FARHIAH BINTI ABDUL MANAN 136430FARHANA YUSOF 136499NUR BAITI SOFYUDDIN 136786AMINAH LET 137176FARHAH IZZATI SHUKOR 137259YONG XIANGPEI 138713SEE HUI YONG 138835

PROGRAM : BACHELOR OF FOOD SCIENCE & TECHNOLOGY

LAB : MAKMAL PEMPROSESAN & MAKMAL BIOKIMIA

DATE : 27TH OGOS 2008LECTURER: PROFESSOR MADYA DR. AZIS ARIFFIN

Introduction:

A meatball is generally a mass of grounded meat and other ingredients, such as

bread or breadcrumbs, minced onion, various spices, and possibly eggs, cooked by

frying, baking, steaming, or braising in sauce. There are many kinds of meatball make

using different kinds of meats and spices. How one makes meatballs depends as much on

one's cultural background as on individual taste. There are even "meatless" meatballs to

satisfy vegetarian palates (Hsu and Yu, 1999).

Meatballs are normally made by grinding muscle tissues, fat, salt and other

ingredients with a cutter, meat pounder or stone grinder. Therefore, it is an emulsified

meat product (Hsu and Yu, 1999). The technical basis for the production of the beef ball

is perhaps very similar to the fish ball whereby the texture of the product is contributed

by the formation of a stable network between proteins and starch molecules. The

solubilization of the protein occurs in the presence of sodium chloride (Lab Manual

2008).

Meatball is a very popular meat product. However, it is becoming a health

concern for consumers because of its high lipid content which is greater than 30% of its

total weight. Therefore, Hsu an Yu done a series of studies in developing low-fat

meatball. Water was used to replace some fat ingredient in the study and phosphates were

adopted to improve qualities of the low-fat products (Hsu and Yu, 1999).

This experiment was designed to let students understand the processing of beef

ball and to discover the effects of added starch on the characteristics of the beef balls.

Experiment 1: The Processing of Beef ball

Experiment 1a: The Effect of Added Starch on the Characteristic of the Beef ball

Equipments and Utensils:

Meat Grinder

Silent Bowl Cutter

Forming Machine (optional)

Utensils for washing (e.g basin and sieves)

PH meter

Moisture meter

Balance

Ingredients and Chemical:

Beef 1.0kg

Salt 20g

Sugar 5g

Corn starch 100g (optional- only for experiment 1a)

Tripolyphosphate 25g

Garlic 2.5g

Black pepper 2.5g

Ice 50g

Procedure

All the ingredients were weighed accurately

The meat was cut into cube by using meat cutter

The beef was washed and the meat was grind by using meat grinder

Salt was added and mixed for 10 to 15 minute

Corn starch, polyphosphate, ice and the rest of ingredients were gradually added to the

mixture

The ingredient was mixed for another 10 minute

The mixture was shaped into balls by using forming machine and the product was frozen.

Analysis

The sensory evaluation (texture, flavor, overall acceptability), determination of moisture

content and the pH of the fresh meat and the beef balls. At the same time, the yield of

beef balls also determined.

Results and Analysis:

Table 1: The yield of beef balls, pH, moisture content, and sensory evaluation of

fresh meat and beef balls with different formulations.

Control

(Group 1, 2, and 3)

Added Corn Starch

(Group 4, 5, and 6)

Fresh meat Beef balls Fresh meat Beef balls

Yield of beef balls – 86.31% – 95.16%

pH 6.47 6.68 5.39 6.64

Moisture content 38.70% 54.60% 50.20% 57.90%

Sensory Evaluation:

Texture score – 3 – 2

Flavour score – 2 – 2

Overall acceptability – 3 – 2

Key:

For texture score:

1 – very springy, 2 – springy, 3 – neither springy or soft, 4 – slight soft, 5 – very soft

For flavour and overall acceptability score:

1 – very acceptable, 2 – acceptable, 3 – least acceptable

PERCENTAGE OF YIELD OF BEEF BALLS WITH DIFFERENT FORMULATIONS

80.00%

82.00%

84.00%

86.00%

88.00%

90.00%

92.00%

94.00%

96.00%

Control Added Corn starch

Formulation

Per

cen

tag

e o

f Y

ield

Yield of Beef Balls

Graph 1: The percentage of yield of beef balls with different formulations. The

percentage of yield of the beef balls with added corn starch gave higher value than that

of control beef balls. This may due to the degree of wastage during the processing of the

beef balls.

pH OF FRESH MEAT AND BEEF BALLS WITH DIFFERENT FORMULATIONS

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

Control Added Corn starch

Formulation

pH

Fresh Meat

Beef Balls

Graph 2: The pH of fresh meat and beef balls with different formulations. The pH of beef

balls of different formulations showed very similar pH value to each other. The pH of

fresh meat and beef balls with added corn starch showed higher difference than those of

control. This may due to the corn starch that present in the ingredients.

MOISTURE CONTENT OF FRESH MEAT AND BEEF BALLS WITH DIFFERENT FORMULATIONS

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

Control Added Corn starch

Formulation

Mo

istu

re C

on

ten

t

Fresh Meat

Beef Balls

Graph 3: The moisture content of fresh meat and beef balls with different formulations.

The moisture content of both fresh meat and beef balls with added corn starch showed

higher values than those of control respectively. This may due to the water holding

capacity of the fresh meat and beef balls.

THE SENSORY SCORES FOR BEEF BALLS WITH DIFFERENT FORMULATIONS

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

Texture Flavour OverallAcceptability

Sensory Characteristics

Sco

res

Control

Added Corn Starch

Graph 4: The sensory scores on texture, flavour, and overall acceptability of the beef

balls with different formulations. The scores for texture and overall acceptability of

control beef balls are higher than that of beef balls with added corn starch. This may due

to the ingredients added.

Discussions:

This experiment was conducted to observe and understand the processing for the

production of beef balls and the effects of the addition of corn starch to the beef balls

productions. In this experiment, red meat (e.g., beef meat) was used to produce beef balls.

During the experiment, we were given two attributes to be observed, one with mixture

added with corn starch and the other one is the control mixture which is not added with

any corn starch. Thus, several details or properties that we observed to the beef ball

mixture such as the yield of the beef balls, the pH, the moisture content and the sensory

evaluation of the beef balls produced.

Based on the result obtained from the experiment, it could be observed that the

percentage of yield for beef balls was higher for added corn starch in the mixture of beef

balls which was 95.16% of yield compared to the control meat balls which was not added

with any corn starch and produced 86.13% percentage of yield. The differences of

percentage of yield between both mixtures was due to the properties of corn starch which

capable of expanding the yield of the mixture.

Next properties that we observed to the beef balls production is the pH value for

both beef balls products. Both control and added corn starch beef balls showed not much

significant difference of their pH value. This might be due to corn starch that did not give

any effect on the pH value on the beef balls products and hence the pH value showed not

much difference. Our next analysis that we observed was the moisture content for both

beef products. The moisture content analysis was carried out using oven method and the

analysis was done to both samples. It was shown that the moisture content of beef balls

added with corn starch was 57.90% which is higher than beef balls without any addition

of corn starch was 54.60%. The moisture content of the beef balls with corn starch added

was high due to the properties of the corn starch itself which capable of retaining the

moisture in the mixture. Hence it gave high moisture content reading due to the moisture

retained in the mixture.

To produce beef balls of good quality, sugars and salts should not be omitted from

the formulations. This is because both sugars and salts have their own functional

properties and characteristics, which can improve the quality of manufactured beef balls.

While processing beef balls, salts must be added in them as salts function as the improver

of the proteins in the beef balls. Salts, such as sodium chloride can enhance the role of

proteins by adhering restructured meat pieces to give a good binding. Water retention in

beef balls is also important because good water retention can make the beef balls juicier

and tenderer. Hence, with the addition of salts, salts can help to retain water molecules in

the beef balls. Other than that, salts can also reduce cooking loss and this is an advantage

of adding salts as the beef balls processed in this laboratory will be boiled at later stage.

When salts are added to beef balls, myosin depolymerizes and actomyosin dissociates to

allow the expansion of myofibrillar lattice. With this expansion, more water can be

retained and weight loss of cooking can also be reduced. Other than that, the

depolymerization of myosin and dissociation of actomyosin can cause adhesion on

cooking. The constituent meat pieces can be bound together with the assistance of

solubilized proteins as these solubilized proteins can gell with the presence of salts.

Sugar should not be omitted from the formulation because sugars can prevent the

granules from clumping together and also omit the formation of lumps. As a result,

sugars must be added in the beef balls to allow the occurrence of individual swelling.

Individual swelling is important because sugar can physically separate the starch granules

and acts as separating agent. In addition, sugar can also contribute to the sweet taste

especially when a higher amount of sugars are added. Apart from giving sweet taste when

a considerable amount is added, sugars also do not degrade the structure of the meat and

improves the organoleptic properties, especially the taste.

Starch is popular for its versatile use in foods. Starch has gelling properties and it

is able to thicken the food and bind water to which it is added in. In this experiment,

cornstarch was used. Cornstarch is the starch made from endosperm of corn, which is

comprised of amylose and amylopectin. With the presence of heat in water, a viscous,

opaque paste is formed. It has the functions as mentioned above. It gells in the food to

which it is added and acts as a thickener. In beef balls, cornstarch can act as fat replacer

too. Starch in beef balls can give mouthfeel attributes when they are consumed. This is

because the amylose chains in starch can form helical or spherical shapes, which hold

water molecules and thus provide bulk. Apart from that, the mouthfeel and viscosity

impacted by cornstarch can also take place when the cornstarch is hydrolysed. Hence, the

maltodextrin formed as a result of hydrolysis of starch can contribute to the use of lower

fat content in some foods as well as to obtain the effect of mouthfeel exerted by fats and

oils. Apart from that, cornstarch can also act as flavor carrier, which enhance the flavor of

beef balls and thus increases its palatability.

Tripolyphosphate is a widely used preservative in seafood, meats and poultry. The

addition of tripopyphoaphate in the beef balls of this laboratory had increased the amount

of water they could retain. This was shown by the moisture content of control fresh meat

and beef balls and also fresh meat and beef balls added with cornstarch. Both the control

and cornstarch added beef balls had higher moisture content than the control and

cornstarch added fresh meat. A difference of 15.9% moisture content and 7.7% moisture

content was found between both fresh meat and beef balls. Thus, from the comparison of

moisture content above, tripolyphosphate has an effect in retaining moisture content in

beef balls. It increases the water-holding capacity of meats. This hydration of water in

meat can be influenced by pH changes, ionic strength effect and specific phosphate

anions interaction with divalent cations and myofibrillar proteins. Apart from acting as a

moisture control agent, tripolyohosphate can also form a stable emulsion, where in this

experiment, after cooking the beef balls, tripolyphosphate can also contribute to the

cohesive network of coagulated proteins. Other than that, tripolyphosphate can also

increase the palatability of the beef balls in terms of color, flavor and tenderness.

Finally, the sensory evaluation was done to the beef balls to identify consumer’s

preference and this evaluation is important in evaluating the characteristics of the

products. Generally for beef balls characteristic evaluation, beef balls should have good

appearance, firm texture and good taste which may be much preferable by the consumer.

As for this sensory evaluation, we carried out the evaluation among all the group

members and the evaluation was based on the texture, the flavor and the overall

acceptability of the beef balls. Based on the results of the sensory evaluation, most of our

group member preferred the texture of the control beef balls which was not added with

corn starch mainly because the texture of beef balls with addition of corn starch was

slightly soft and the texture was not preferable. For flavor of the meat balls for both

attribute, our group members like both of the products because both of the product taste

were quite the same. As for the last evaluation was the overall acceptability of the beef

balls and the results showed that our group prefer control beef balls compared to beef

balls with added corn starch.

Inferences

1. Different addition of ingredients namely corn starch and tripolyphosphate (TPP)

into the beef ball mixture will result in different texture characteristic of the beef

ball. It can contribute to higher viscosity in beef balls and thus increase the

mouthfeel of beef balls.

2. Beef balls added with cornstarch give higher yield.

3. Tripolyphosphate and salts have the function in beef balls processing, where they

act to retain moisture in the beef balls and contribute to the better texture in beef

balls.

4. pH of meat and beef ball are almost the same.

5. The sensory evaluation is important in evaluating the characteristic of the product.

Conclusion

In conclusion, the quality of processed beef balls can be enhanced by adding

different type of ingredients for each of their special functional properties. The beef balls

with added cornstarch gained preference from most consumers as these beef balls had

higher moisture content which might contribute to the juiciness of the beef balls. In

addition, cornstarch added beef balls also had higher quality in terms of texture and

flavor. It has more viscous texture and most acceptable flavor.

References

1. Hsu, S.Y. and Yu, S.H. (1999). Effects of phosphate, water, fat and salt on

qualities of low-fat emulsified meatball, Journal of Food Engineering 39,

(pg 123-130)

2. Vaclavik, V.A., Christian, E. W. (2007). Essentials of Food Science. (pp 65-70). Florida: Springer.

3. Sheard, L. (2002). Processing and Quality Control of Restructured Meat. In Kerry, J. and Ledward, D.A. Meat Processing: Improving Quality. (pp.343). Cambridge: Woodhead Publisher.

4. Hui, Y.H. and Igoe, R.S. (2001) Dictionary of Food Ingredients. (pp.36). Gaitherburg: An Aspen Publication.

5. http://www.w3.org/1999/Meatball.html

Accessed date: 22 August 2008

6. http://www.usemod.com/meatball/htm

Accessed date: 22 August 2008

7. Schimdt, G. R. (1988). Processing. In H. R. Cross, & A. J Overby, World Animal

Science: Meat Science, Milk science and technology (pp. 83-113). Netherlands:

Elsevier Science Publishers.

8. Serdaroglu, M. (2006). Improving low fate meatball characteristics by adding

whey powder. Meat Science, 72, 155-163

9. Serdaroglu, M. & Degirmencioglu, O. (2004). Affect of fat level (5%, 10%, and

20%) an corn flour (0%, 2%, 4%) on some properties of Turkish type meatballs

(koeffle). Meat Science, 68, 291-296

10. Meyer, L. H. (1966). Food Chemistry. London: Chapmen & Hall.

11. Danilov, M. M. (1964). Handbook of Food Products: Meat and Meat Products:

Science Publishers Ltd.