PRACTICAL REPORT

Mata Kuliah : Innovation of Meat Dosen :Dr Cahyo Budiman,

Processing SPt MEgh
Hari/Tanggal :Wednesday/21 August 2019 Teknisi : Devi Murtini, SPt
Tempat :1. Animal Production and MAFH
technology laboratory Asisten :1.Muhammad Abdul
2. Big Ruminati Laboratory Aziz (D14150098)
3. Integrated Laboratory 2. Alfiroos Joluwin
(D14160071)
Practicum to 2

MEAT QUALITY ASSESSMENT

Group 3 / G2

Sastra Adinata (D34170005)

Marwah Hasan (D34170023)
Vivi Indriani (D34170032)
Muhammad Muflih Farhan (D34170045)
Fahren Fathiya Fathurrachman (D34170068)

MAJOR OF ANIMAL PRODUCTS TECHNOLOGY

DEPARTMENT OF ANIMAL PRODUCTION AND TECHNOLOGY
FACULTY OF ANIMAL SCIENCE
IPB UNIVERSITY
2019
 INTRODUCTION
Background
Meat is an important food source for humans. All muscle tissue contains a
lot of protein. Protein from meat contains essential amino acids as it is a very good
food that is used as a source of animal protein to improve nutrition. Meat is easily
contaminated by microorganisms, so it can affect meat quality.
Meat must look good to consumers when they buy it to satisfy their taste.
Good meat is obtained through proper processing and storage. In meat processing,
contamination should be avoided. Consumption often rejects products whose color
deviates from a predictable appearance (Anwer et al. 2013).

Objectives
To introduce physical and chemical quality testing tehcniques for meat.
 REFERENCE REVIEW
Meat

Part of skeletal muscle from cattle carcass that is safe, feasible and prevalent
for human, which is fresh meat, cold fresh meat, or frozen meat (SNI 2008).

Physical Properties of Meat

Meat is animal protein that is easy to digest compared to vegetable protein.

Part of the most important thing that becomes the reference of consumers in
selection of meat is the physical properties. Physical properties in this case
including color, tenderness, texture, chewiness, and wetness. Physical properties
play an important role in processing because physical properties determine quality
also the kind of product can be made( Komariah et al 2009).

Cooking Loss

Cooking loss is one of indicator of nutritional value of a food product and

factor that will affect economic value( Rosita et al 2015).

Water Holding Capacity

Water holding capacity is an indicator to measure the ability of meat to

bind water and added water as long there is an strength from the outside
(Merthayasa et al 2015).
 METHOD
Tools
Tools used in the meat quality assessment practicum was pH meter, cup,
oven, scales, filter paper, water bath, knife, dessicator, planimeter, and plastic bags.
Material
Material used in the meat quality assessment practicum was fresh beef,
frozen beef, fresh goat meat, frozen goat meat, and aquades.
Procedure
Practicum subjective observation of meat quality was started cut each meat
transversely so that tendons are clearly visible. The color, aroma, and fiber of meat
was observed. The results of the observations were tabulated in the table.
Practicum objective observation of meat quality was started measuring pH
of meat. First, pH meter was standardized with a pH buffer solution (Ph 4 and Ph
7). Next, the sample was crushed and added with distilled water in a ratio of 1: 1
and then dipped in a ph meter. after using the tip of the ph meter is washed with
distilled water until clean, then dried with a tissue.
Practicum water Content Measurement were started empty cups was dried
in an oven at 110oC for 30 minutes. Then, the glass was put into the desiccator for
10 minutes and weighed to get W1. After that, 10g of sample was put into a cup
and weighed to get W2 weight. The glass was put into the oven at 110oC for 18-24
hours, then put into the desiccator for 15 minutes, then weighed to get W3.
Practicum water holding capacity using Hamm method was started 0.3 gram
was taken and then placed between 2 filter paper, then pressed using carper Press
for 5 minutes. After pressing, the filter paper has two circles showing the
compressed meat area (Inner Circle = LD) and the area of water that comes out of
the meat as a result of pressing (Outer Circle = LL or wet area). The paper was dried
for a while and then the paper was marked with a ballpoint. To find out the amount
of free water coming out of the meat, the two areas are measured using a Planimeter.
Practicum water binding capacity was started meat weighing 1.5 - 2.5 grams
is put into a cup and centrifuged at 36,000 rpm for 60 minutes. Next, the meat
residue and water binding capacity (WBC) were weighed.
Practicum measuring driploss. First, meat weighed 2.5 cm without fat and
connective tissue. Next, the meat was tied with string and hung tightly wrapped.
Meat may not touch plastic bags. Meat was hung at room temperature for 24 hours.
After that, the meat was released and before weighing the meat was dried then
weighed.
Practicum measuring cooking loss. Fisrt, the sample weighed 20 grams and
put in a plastic bag. After that the plastic is closed. The meat was put into the water
bath at 80ºC for 60 minutes. The sample was dipped in cold water and then
continued at room temperature for 30 minutes. Then, the sample was taken and
dried with a tissue without pressing it. Weigh the sample as the final weight.
 RESULT AND DISCUSSION
Result
Quality is a combination of product attributes that are organoleptically
evaluated and used by consumers to select products. Meat quality is determined
by water content, cook loss, drip loss, DMA and sensitivity. The following are the
data obtained from the results of the meat quality tests.
Tabel 1 Data of Meat Results Testing
Wide wet
Cooking Water Driploss
Sample pH area
loss (%) content (%) (%)
(inchi)
Fresh Beef 1 26.40 12.48 5.78 0.59 8.57
Fresh Beef 2 39.30 70.85 5.75 1.30 13.33
Fresh Beef 3 34.90 71.65 5.87 0.21 10.70
X 33.53 72.58 5.80 0. 70 10.86
Frozen Beef 1 30.65 12.12 5.80 1.30 28.33
Frozen Beef 2 46.00 75.20 5.75 0.03 23.26
Frozen Beef 3 41.80 75.32 5.92 0.51 23.30
X 39.48 74.63 5.83 0.61 24.96
Fresh Lamb 1 37.80 73.89 6.31 0.56 5.30
Fresh Lamb 2 31.40 75.28 6.44 0.96 18.75
Fresh Lamb 3 24.00 73.88 6.46 0.11 9.13
X 31.06 74.35 6.30 0.54 11,06
Frozen lamb 1 21.50 72.07 6.34 1.03 19.00
Frozen lamb 2 35.60 72.20 6.41 1.60 16.80
Frozen lamb 3 25.60 71.63 6.19 1.20 7.79
X 27.57 72.06 6.28 0.94 14.53

The organoleptic test is a test of the qualities of meat. Organoleptic tests

can be performed using a hedonic scale score. The test results are listed in the
following table
Tabel 2 Data of Meat Organoleptic Test

Sample Colour Aroma Texsture

Fresh Beef 1 4 Strong Rough
Fresh Beef 2 4 Strong Smooth
Fresh Beef 3 4 Strong Smooth
X 4
Frozen Beef 1 4 No smell Normal
Frozen Beef 2 5 No smell Rough
Frozen Beef 3 5 No smell Rough
X 4.46
Fresh Lamb 1 6 Very strong Smooth
Fresh Lamb 2 7 Very strong Rough
Fresh Lamb 3 5 Strong Smooth
X 6
Frozen lamb 1 4 Strong Smooth
Frozen lamb 2 6 No Smell Smooth
Frozen lamb 3 6 No smell Normal
X 5.30

Discussion

Meat is a part that does not contain bones, whereas carcasses is a flesh that
has not been separated from its bones or skeleton. Carcasses Also interpreted as
animals after cutting, Cleaned from the Jerohan, and the lower legs have also
undergone Cutting. Carcasses are usually also separated from the head. Did
FAO/WHO Understanding of carcasses is more clearly the body part of the animal
that Was slaughtered, intact, or parted along the spine, which only Head, legs,
skin, inner organs (innards), and separated tails.There are five steps that must be
passed to obtain carcasses. The Stages It includes ante mortem inspections,
slaughtering, blood finishing, dressing, and Pascamortem Inspections (Dwiari,
2008). Meat is one of the food that has nutritional value A protein containing a
complete amino acid arrangement. Meat defined as meat veins (muscles) attached
to the skeleton, unless the Meat of the lips, nose, and ears derived from healthy
animals When cut. Differences in understanding meats and carcasses lie in its pure
content. The meat usually has no bones, while the The carcass is a flesh that has not
been separated from its bones (Heri 2015).

There are two types of factors that affect meat quality, namely before and
after cutting (Clerjon 2009). Factors before slaughtering are genetic, species,
nationality, livestock type, age, feed and ingredients, and stressful conditions
(Honikel 2010). Genetic influences because the heritability value of beef tenderness
is around 45%, meaning that 45% of beef tenderness when cooked is determined
by genetic factors or the parent of the cattle being slaughtered. Genetic factors will
determine the tendency of intergrading meat and similar cuts of meat. Species are
seen from the taxonomy of livestock that is the most concerned, namely the species
because the species determines whether the livestock are mostly raised in Indonesia,
capable of producing meat or milk, and has a high adaptability production, and so
on. Species determine the level of trade in livestock. Nations can also influence
because each nation has its own advantages and crossed will produce good quality
meat. The type of livestock determines the tenderness of the meat itself, such as the
type of beef cattle and the type of dairy cattle. Type of beef cattle is more tender
than the type of dairy cattle. Because the type of beef cattle itself is kept to produce
meat, and vice versa. Age also greatly influences the quality of meat because the
older the animal's age, the more connective tissue structure, so that the meat
produced is more clay, if pressed with a finger, healthy meat will have a springy
(solid) consistency (Electricity 2016). Another factor that influences the quality of
meat is the factor after cutting, namely the withering method. Withering is the
handling of fresh meat after slaughter by hanging or storing for a certain time at
temperatures above the freezing point of meat (-1.50C). Meat that we buy at the
market or supermarket is meat that has undergone a process of withering. During
withering, there is an enzyme activity that is able to decipher the woven connective
meat. Meat becomes more binding water, is more tender, and has a stronger flavor
(Faucitano 2018).
The quality of frozen and fresh meat has differences in subjective and
objective observations. Subjective observations on frozen meat have a redder color
than fresh meat, the aroma of frozen meat does not have a strong odor of meat
compared to fresh meat which has a strong meat aroma, and the texture of frozen
meat is coarser than that of fresh meat which has a texture finer than frozen meat.
Frozen meat has a rough texture because frozen meat has ice crystals inside and
outside the meat. Frozen meat has a dark red aroma and color because in frozen
meat crystallizes which causes the meat to turn dark and suppress the aroma of meat
in frozen meat. Objective observations on meat are pH measurement of meat, water
content measurement, water holding capacity using the Hamm method, water
binding capacity (WBC), drip loss measurement and cooking loss measurement.
Frozen meat has a greater pH than fresh meat which is 5,929 while fresh meat 5,870,
water content in fresh meat has a smaller percentage compared to frozen meat that
is 71.65% while frozen meat is 75.32%, water holding capacity in frozen meat is
smaller than fresh meat ie 0.5 while fresh meat 0.71, drip loss on fresh meat has a
smaller presentation than frozen meat that is 10.74% while frozen meat 38.02% and
cooking loss on fresh meat has a greater presentation than fresh meat that is 41.8
while fresh meat is 34.9 this is because frozen meat can absorb more water than
fresh meat (Wu 2019).
Beef and mutton have the same subjective observations. The texture of fresh
beef is as smooth as fresh goat meat as well as frozen meat, both of which have a
rough texture. The aroma of fresh beef and the aroma of fresh goat meat also has a
pungent aroma as well as meat, both have a non-pungent aroma. Observation on the
color of beef and goat has a difference that is goat meat has a redder color compared
to beef. And on objective observations, the results on beef and on mutton are close
to each other, which means that goat meat and beef are almost the same (Menchacha
2016).
 CONCLUTION
The conclusion in this practicum is that the highest cooking loss occurs in
frozen beef, which is 39.48% and the lowest in frozen goat meat is 27.57%, the
highest water content is in frozen beef with 74.63% water content and the lowest is
in frozen goat meat, the highest pH is fresh goat meat, while the lowest is fresh
beef, the highest dripploss is in frozen beef as much as 24.96% and the lowest is in
fresh beef10,86%. Fresh beef has a value of 4, frozen beef 4.67, fresh mutton 6, and
frozen mutton 5.3. Frozen meat on average has no aroma, and the texture of meat
varies.
 REFERENCES
Anwer M, Khan MI, Pasha I, Tariq MR, Sohaib M. 2013. Quality assessment of
meat in relation to colour and muscle fiber types. Pakistan Journal of
Food Sciences. 23(2): 80-86.
Clerjon S. 2009. Meat quality assessment using biophysical methods related to meat
structure. Journal of Meat science. 80(1): 132-149.
Dwiari SR. 2008. Food technology. Bogor(ID): IPB Press.
Faucitano L. 2018. Validation of stress indicators for the assessment of animal
welfare preslaughter and prediction of meat quality variation. Journal of
Animal Science. 96: 3-4.
Heri W, Rindiani FN. 2015. Basic Foodstuffs. Yogyakarta(ID): Nuha Medika.
Honikel K. 2010. Reference methods for the assessment of physical characteristics
of meat. Journal of Meat science. 49(4): 447-457
Komariah, Rahayu S, Sartijo. 2009. Sifat fisik daging sapi, kerbau, dan domba pada
lama Postmortem yang berbeda. Buletin Peternakan. 33(3): 183-189.
Listrat A. 2016. How muscle structure and composition influence meat and flesh
quality. The Scientific World Journal. 6(2): 69-75.
Manchacha A. 2016. Alternative programs for synchronizing and resynchronizing
ovulation in beef cattle. Theriogenology. 86(1): 388-396.
Methayasa JD, Suada JK, Agustina KK. Daya ikat air, pH, warna, bau dan tekstur
daging sapi bali dan daging Wagyu. Indonesia Medicus Veterinus. 4(1): 16-
24.
Rosita F, Hafid H, Aka R. 2015. Susut masak dan kualitas organoleptic bakso
daging sapi dengan penambahan tepung sagu pada level yang berbeda.
JITRO. 2(1): 14-20.
Wu J. 2019. Integrated Global Red Meat. Journal of Red Meat Science and
Production. 9(2): 167-172.
ATTACHMENT