**6. Cooking loss**

Chicken sample with olive oil showed lower cooking loss in weight due to grilling when compared to the corresponding samples without olive oil. This result showed the ability of protein matrix to bind monounsaturated fat. Chicken samples with olive oil had lower cooking loss in weight when compared to beef samples which was due to the highest water holding capacity, lipid capacity and lipid stability of chicken meat rather than beef meat.


Each value is the mean of three replicates.

\* Values within the same column with different subscripts are significantly (p< 0.05) different according to LSD.

\*\* Values within the same row with different superscripts denote significant differences (p< 0.05) according to LSD.

Table 6. Percentage cooking loss in weight of burger samples during storage period.

Beef Chicken Mixed Beef with olive

a44.20a a44.57a a44.61a

a42.95b b41.70b c36.58b

a12.39b b11.93a c11.29a

\* Values within the same column with different subscripts are significantly (p< 0.05) different according

\*\* Values within the same row with different superscripts denote significance different (p< 0.05) among

Table 5. Effect of formulation, storage time and grilling on fatty acids profile (g/100g fat) of

Grilling significantly decreased SFA, and increased MUFA contents of all samples, except for MUFA contents of chicken sample which remained constant. PUFA contents, in general,

Chicken sample with olive oil showed lower cooking loss in weight due to grilling when compared to the corresponding samples without olive oil. This result showed the ability of protein matrix to bind monounsaturated fat. Chicken samples with olive oil had lower cooking loss in weight when compared to beef samples which was due to the highest water holding capacity, lipid capacity and lipid stability of chicken meat rather than beef meat.

> b50.22b b50.48b a52.63b

\* Values within the same column with different subscripts are significantly (p< 0.05) different according

\*\* Values within the same row with different superscripts denote significant differences (p< 0.05)

Table 6. Percentage cooking loss in weight of burger samples during storage period.

\*Treatment\*\*

Raw Grilled Raw Grilled Raw Grilled Raw Grilled Raw Grilled

a40.11b a40.24b a40.49b

a46.69a b46.02a c38.72a

a12.86a b11.42b c10.79b

\*Treatment\*\*

b51.30a b51.53a a53.17a olive oil

b50.26b b50.21b a52.78b

Chicken with olive oil

> b43.28d b43.02d a47.39d

Beef Chicken Mixed Beef with

oil

a24.61b a24.90b a24.92b

a64.43a b63.46a c54.50a

a9.82a b7.93a b7.77a

a27.20a a26.93a a27.13a

a59.65b b56.90b c47.22b

a9.49b b7.29a c5.94b Chicken with olive oil

> a19.48b a19.50b a19.73b

> a68.71a b67.72a c57.52a

> a12.87a a12.77a b12.02a

a23.40a a23.61a a23.72a

a62.60b b60.19b c50.59b

a13.26a b12.59b c10.34b

Characteristic

SFA

MUFA

PUFA

to LSD.

Time of storage (month)

> 0 1 3

> 0 1 3

> 0 1 3

the burger samples.

**6. Cooking loss** 

Characteristic

Cooking loss%

according to LSD.

to LSD.

a58.54a a58.28a a58.89a

a38.73b b38.11b c35.35b

a2.16b b1.53b c1.15b

Each value is the mean of three replicates.

raw and grilled sample according to LSD

Time of storage (month)

> 0 1 3

Each value is the mean of three replicates.

a53.70b a53.75b a53.63b

a41.13a b39.99a c36.50a

a4.06a b2.47a <sup>b</sup> 2.69a a33.42a a33.50a a33.76a

a47.56a b45.87a c35.17b

a18.92a b17.82b b17.64b

increased in most samples, but in some cases there was no clear trend.

b49.69c b49.86c a51.70c a33.11b a33.25b a33.57b

a47.50a b45.76a c40.60a

a18.69a a18.55a a18.42a In the mixed treatment we expected that cooking loss value will be between beef and chicken sample values, but unexpected result was obtained, the outcome showed that mixed treatment had the highest cooking loss in weight. More investigation is needed to explain the results.

The highest cooking loss was found after three months of storage which might be due to the weakness of protein matrix to entrap moisture and fat during storage, moreover, this weakness of protein matrix results in decrease of water and lipid holding capacity and stability, which might be due to denaturation of protein during frozen storage.
