J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


J. Anim Sci. 1980. 51:615-619.
© 1980 American Society of Animal Science

This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Berry, B. W.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Berry, B. W.

Effects of Chopping versus Grinding on Palatability, Shear, Chemical and Cooking Properties of Beef Patties1

B. W. Berry

Meat Science Research Laboratory, Science and Education Administration, Agricultural Research, USDA, Beltsville, MD 20705

Abstract

Two sources of lean meat (USDA Cutter-Canner cow trimmings, USDA Choice chuck trimmings) were subjected to two methods of initial comminution (chopping, grinding) and a combination of chopping and grinding in the manufacture of beef patties. Chopping resulted in higher sensory panel scores for juiciness, initial and final tenderness and initial and final connective tissue than did grinding. Patties made from USDA Choice beef were given higher sensory panel scores and had lower shear force and shear energy values than patties made from USDA Cutter-Canner beef. Patties processed from chopped USDA Choice beef and chopped-ground USDA Cutter-Canner beef had the greatest cooking losses and greatest reduction in patty height during cooking. Few differences due to batching were noted. From the standpoint of palatability, chopping appears to be a suitable substitute for grinding as the initial means of comminuting trimmings in the manufacture of ground beef patties. Patties made from USDA Cutter-Canner cow beef can be expected to rate less palatable than patties from USDA Choice chuck trimmings.


Footnotes

1 The author thanks the Kroger Co., Cincinnati, OH 45201, for its assistance in this project. This project was supported in part by a grant from the Natick Army Research and Development Command, Natick, MA 01760. Mention of brand names does not imply endorsement by the US Government.







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
Copyright © 1980 by the American Society of Animal Science.