# Influence of Finely Chopped Meat Addition on Quality Parameters of Minced Meat
## 3 Results and Discussion
### Quality Characterization of Minced Meat
#### 3.2.1 Water Holding Capacity  
Moisture content and cooking loss do show almost the same significant differences, whereas drip loss by filter press method is not influenced by FCM content (Table 1). In other words, these important quality factors for consumers [23]--the volume of the minced meat mass in the pan--of minced meat are not influenced by the addition of 30% FCM with 50 Vol.-% ANIC. The moisture content in minced meat was significantly (\(p\) < 0.05) increased when over 30% of FCM were added. This can be explained by the fact that the minced meat consists of pork shoulder and the FCM consists of pork loin and therefore meat composition, especially fat content, varies [40]. Directly after slaughter, lean meat contains app. 75% water [42]. In general, cutting of meat destroys the cellular and fibrillar structure [43], and the commination increases the surface area of meat which results in a higher drip loss, allowing the immobilized water to excess the cells [44]. Moreover, changes in cell structure and water holding capacity correlate [23] since drip loss is influenced by the release of intracellular proteins as well as morphological changes [45]. A correlation between damaged myofibrils and water release in pork was also shown by [PERSON], et al. [21]. Changes occur due to differences in spacing between thick and thin filaments, where water is held in myofibrils, as well as the fact that myofibrils shrink postmortem and fluid is drained by gravity [42]. Referring to emulsified sausages, [PERSON] [46] described a lower drip loss with more intensive communication as the myofibrillar proteins are solubilized and are enabled \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c} \hline \hline
**Finely Chopped Meat Portion (\%)** & **Moisture Content (\%)** & **Drip Loss (\%)** & **Filter Press Method)** & **Cooking Loss (\%)** \\ \hline
0 & 72.73 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.93 & 17.05 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 1.50 & 28.27 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 1.54 \\
15 & 72.66 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.75 & 17.22 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 2.14 & 28.33 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 1.24 \\
30 & 72.78 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 0.67 & 16.91 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 1.95 & 26.82 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\pm\) 1.03 \\
45 & 73.19 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\pm\) 1.00 & 17.40 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 2.51 & 27.09 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\pm\) 1.07 \\
60 & 73.37 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\pm\) 0.67 & 17.07 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 2.53 & 27.45 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\pm\) 1.60 \\
75 & 73.80 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\pm\) 0.39 & 16.82 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 2.30 & 26.66 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\pm\) 1.29 \\
90 & 74.12 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.37 & 17.07 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 2.95 & 26.57 \({}^{\text{ab}}\)\(\pm\) 1.26 \\
100 & 74.14 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 0.53 & 16.12 \({}^{\text{a}}\)\(\pm\) 2.25 & 25.70 \({}^{\text{b}}\)\(\pm\) 1.71 \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular} \({}^{\text{ab}}\) Different letters indicate significant differences (\(p\) < 0.05) for each parameter.  
\end{table} 
Table 1: Moisture content, drip loss by filter press method and cooking loss (mean \(\pm\) standard deviation) of minced meat with finely chopped meat added (\(n\) = 9). to bind water. The drip loss is not showing significant decreased values, even though the soluble protein content is increased for samples with an increased FCM portion (see Figure 4). However, as cooking loss decreases, the higher the FCM portion; these results are in line with [PERSON] [46] as this effect is probably caused by an increased water binding based on the high amount of soluble proteins in FCM. Generally, meat without any additions can lose up to 40% weight due to cooking [42]. The decreased cooking loss with an increased FCM portion, resp. moisture content, can also be explained by the lower fat content. This is due to the fact that in the cooking loss, in addition to water loss due to protein denaturation [47], the fat loss is also measured [48]. Moreover, SEM images (see Figure 3g,i) support the idea that the water holding capacity of 0 and 100% FCM is similar, as the fibrous structures have app. the same thickness.