INTRODUCTION

Background of the Study

Tenderness appears to be the quality factor which is most difficult to determine

objectively. Tenderizing meat is one of the most challenging parts in cooking.

Innovations have been made for it to be easier to do. Pressure cookers are the most

advanced tools in tenderizing meat.

However, there is a traditional way of tenderizing meat which has been put aside

since it has not been noticed by science. Utilizing jackfruit leaves as a meat tenderizer by

our grandparents led us to a curiosity of what is in the leaves that they are put alongside

with the meat while boiling.

Tenderizing meat involves breaking down its connective tissue in a process called

denaturing. Enzymatic meat tenderizers are made of proteolytic enzymes called

proteases, which can break down the peptide bonds between the amino acids found in

complex proteins. This makes the meat softer, since one of the main things holding meat

together is the complex protein collagen.

Proteolytic enzymes or proteins found in jackfruit leaves characterize digesting

properties when isolated and purified by acid precipitation and ion exchange

chromatography. The purified protein contained protease activity by digesting gelatin-

and casein substrates and was designated as antimicrobial protease- 48 kDa or AMP48

due to its molecular mass on SDS- PAGE was approximately 48 kDa (Siritapetawee et.

al., 1998).

1
 Based on the aforementioned studies, we intended to evaluate the effectiveness of

jackfruit (Artocarpus heterophyllus) leaves as meat tenderizer. Specifically, it sought to;

determine which set-up effectively tenderize the meat (controlled group and experimental

group treated with 20g of jackfruit leaves) and determine if there is a significant

difference between the tenderness of the meat between the controlled and experimental

set-ups.

In this study, we expect that the jackfruit leaves that will be boiled in the water will

tenderize the meat and will give out positive results.

Hypothesis

H0: There is no significant difference in the tenderness of the meat between the

controlled group and experimental group.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Materials

 20 grams of young Jackfruit leaves

 Beef (Cow Meat) with a thickness of 0.5 inch and weigh 10 grams each

 Distilled Water

 Casserole

 Container

 Stove

 Pressure cooker

 Fork

2
Methods

We used the experimental research design to evaluate the effectiveness of jackfruit

leaves as a meat tenderizer.

The experimental group was treated with 20 grams of jackfruit leaves. The

controlled group did not receive any treatment at all. The meat samples were randomly

assigned into groups. In this case, they had an equal chance of being assigned into any

group in the experiment to ensure that the outcome of the study was due to the

manipulation of independent variable. The identified controlled variables in the study

were the dimensions of meat, kind and part of the meat, the quality and volume of water,

the kind of kitchenware that was used and the intensity of fire.

Sourcing and Training of Potential Panelists

Forty people were invited to participate as potential panelists of this study. The

potential panelists were composed of heterogeneous senior high school students from

Ligao National High School. The participants were made to sign a consent form to

comply with the ethical guidelines for the protection of human subjects as participants of

the research.

We randomly assigned codes that corresponded to each of the potential panelists

of the study. This was done to ensure confidentiality and that the outcome of the study

was due to the manipulation of the samples. We considered these panelists as descriptive

panel since they determined differences between food samples and they received training

prior to the testing. In the selecting the potential panelists, the following criteria were met

(Jones & Bartlett, 2013):

3
  they must be in good health and free from illnesses related to sensory

properties, such as chronic colds or food allergies;

 they must be non-smokers (smoking can dull olfactory and gustatory

sensations);

 they must be not color blind; and

 they must have no strong likes and dislikes for the food to be tested.

This study was divided in two phases—training session in tenderness analysis,

and final experimentation. The panelists were trained for 3 consecutive days. First, they

were oriented with the proper evaluation of meat and assessment of meat. Triangle tests

were then conducted to qualify or disqualify panelists.

Triangle Test

Triangle test is a three- product test in which all the samples are coded and the

panelists’ task is to determine which two are most similar or which one is most different

from the other two. The sequential procedure makes one of the following decisions about

each candidate after each triangle test:

a. rejection of the potential panelist (potential panelist with abilities of 0.70 or less

will be rejected)

b. acceptance of the potential panelist (potential panelist with abilities of 0.95 or

greater will be accepted)

c. continuous testing the candidate

4
 In this study we used α = β = 0.05 as probability of rejecting a satisfactory

panelist and accepting an unsatisfactory panelist.

Experimentation

Figure 1. The experimental set-up Figure 2. Boiling method was

treated with 20 grams of jackfruit done on both the controlled
leaves. and experimental group.

There were only two samples to be tested which were the experimental and the

controlled set-up. The experimental set-up contained the meat boiled with the 20 grams

of jackfruit leaves and the control set-up had no treatment to receive. The rating scale had

five criteria that tested the tenderness characteristic of the samples. From the ratings that

they recorded in the provided score sheet, the final panelists then subjected those ratings

in a 5-point hedonic scaling. The five-point hedonic scaling is a balanced bipolar scale

around neutral at the center with 2 positive and 2 negative categories on each side. The

categories were labelled with phrases representing various degrees of affect and those

labels were arranged successively to suggest a single continuum of likes and dislikes

(Peryam & Pilgrim, 1957).

5
 Extremely Extremely Not
Tender Not Tender
Tender Tender

5 4 2 1

Table1. Five-point hedonic scale

Meat

Figure 3. Each piece of beef had Figure 4. The meat samples were
a thickness of 0.5 inch and weigh equally divided to controlled and
approximately 10 grams each. experimental group.

We used beef (cow meat) in the study since it is known to be difficult to tenderize

among other types of meat. Specifically, we only used cow’s hind leg throughout the

study because it is the hardest part of the meat. Each piece of meat that was served to the

panelist had a thickness of 0.5 inch with an approximate length and width of 1 and 0.5

inches respectively. Each meat sample weighted 10 grams. The cooking method we used

in the study was boiling. Each meat sample per plate was randomly assigned.

6
Preparation of the master sheet

Figure 5. Sample master sheet of trial 5.

We made use of a master sheet where the organized record of sensory test was

presented. The master sheet had the date, type of sample and test employed to be filled

out. As soon as these were completed, there was a random assignment of code numbers

of each sample for each panelist in the set. The code numbers of each sample were in

random three-digit form obtained from the table of random numbers. The random three-

digit code number was done to minimize the tendency of the panelists to associate

superiority of the samples when coded in a one-digit form.

Assuming that there are five panelists and each panelist will evaluate three samples,

the panelist numbers are to be filled out properly and the identification of each sample are

recorded on the master sheet. The researchers will assign 3-digit random numbers to each

of the sample for Panelist 1 before proceeding to Panelist 2.

7
Determining the order of each sample

In the table of random numbers that the researchers used, a permutation of nine

was employed. The main concern was the order of appearance of numbers 1 to 3 which

was referred to as Sample A and C. Then, we wrote the order of serving of the samples in

our master sheet. The order of serving of the samples was randomized because the

panelists tend to rate the first sample higher than what it should be normally rated than

the succeeding samples. Through randomization, this error is eliminated.

Coding sample containers

The sample container for each panelist was coded with 3-digit random numbers

copied from the master sheet. The ink used in marking the sample containers was

odourless and could not impart flavour to the sample. The color of the marking pen was

the same for all the samples within a panelist and among the panelists. Differences in the

color of the code numbers could be associated by the panelists to differences among the

samples, so, the researchers observed same color of ink for code numbers. Also, same

handwriting was observed in making the code numbers.

Preparation of the Score Sheet

Figure 6. Sample score sheet for triangle test of 9th to 13th trial.

8
 A score sheet was prepared for each panelist. The instructions on how to evaluate the

samples and code numbers of the samples to be evaluated following the random order of

serving were in the score sheet. The method of evaluation was the same for all the

samples to prevent invalidity of the test. The panelists evaluated the samples in the

random order previously determined. With the provision of a score sheet, each sample

was therefore evaluated according to the prescribed order.

Sample presentation and environmental control

Figure 7. The only movement permitted Figure 8.The participants were seated
was related to the presentation or at individual seats to make sure that
removal of samples for the panellists there would be no contact with other
and to the judging of the samples participants to avoid bias.

All samples were presented with a three- digit code pre-assigned from a table of

random numbers. The samples were served on transparent 20 plastic plates with one

sample per plate. A knife and fork as testing utensils and a glass of tap water at room

temperature for rinsing the mouth between samples was provided. The panelists were

seated at individual seats to make sure that there would be no contact with other panelists

to avoid bias. Plates of samples were placed on white enamel trays. In the triangle tests,

the odd sample was placed in different positions on the tray for each judge in order to

9
equalize any positional bias. In the scoring test, each panelist received the samples in the

same random order on any one day. The only movement permitted was related to the

presentation or removal of samples for the panellists and to the judging of the samples.

RESULTS

Presentation of Data from the Experiment

Table 2. Panel Test
Score Experimental group (treated
Controlled group
with jackfruit leaves)
Panelist 1 2 1

Panelist 6 4 1

Panelist 18 2 1

Panelist 25 4 2

Panelist 28 4 4
Panelist 31 4 2

Panelist 32 4 2
Panelist 39 2 1

The table above shows the accumulated scores by each final panelist who has

been accepted through the training program. They were categorized into two groups,

namely the experimental and the controlled group. The table shows that the experimental

group has scores that are significantly different from the controlled group

Statistical Treatment

Table 3.. Sample, Mean, and Variance of the two groups

Groups Count Sum Average Variance
Experimental
Group 8 26 3.25 1.071429
Controlled Group 8 14 1.75 1.071429

10
 We used Single Factor ANOVA to statistically analyze the data. More importantly,

the computed F value and F critical value are the most important factors to be considered

in deciding whether to reject or accept the null hypothesis.

Table 4. F value and F critical

Source of
valueVariation SS Df MS F P-value F crit
Between
Groups 9 1 9 8.4 0.011682 4.60011
Within Groups 15 14 1.071429

Total 24 15

From the data given above, we can tell that the computed F value (8.4) is greater

than the F critical value (4.60). With this result, we are to reject the null hypothesis.

Therefore, jackfruit leaves has a great potential of being an effective meat tenderizer.

11
 ANALYSIS AND DISSCUSION

The study was a continuation of a previously done research of the Grade 12-

STEM1 batch 2017-2018. With their recommendations, the researchers wanted to

validate whether the results are true while adding new factors to differentiate this study

from the previous study.

After the conduct of the training program to eliminate the panelists with different

opinions about tenderness, the final panelists which had the same perception of

tenderness were given a hedonic scale to evaluate the meat samples, one from the

experimental group and one from the controlled group.

The results that were accumulated and statistically calculated from the responses

of the panelists show that there is a significant difference between the two samples. The

experimental group that contains the treatment has a higher score coming from the

panelists compared to the controlled group which has no treatment added.

ANOVA: single factor is then used to calculate the gathered data from the

panelists and the computation has shown that the calculated F is 8.4 which is greater than

the F crit which is 4.60011. Thus, we reject the null hypothesis.

It is now safe to say that the jackfruit leaves (Artocarpus heterophyllus) has a

great potential in tenderizing meat, validating the previous research study conducted by

the previous researchers of 12-STEM1.

In light of this study, the researchers recommend that future researchers should

find a more proper place to conduct their research study. The researchers should isolate

each and every participant in their study and the noise should be minimized as possible,

so there will be no contact from each other. Also, the future researchers should undergo

12
pre-screening to make sure that they will be interested in the study being conducted as it

aligns in their interest and motivation, attitudes in food, knowledge and aptitude, health,

ability to communicate and their availability.

One more recommendation the researchers might add is the fact that they should

also maximize the time to train the panelists. The researchers recommend one week of

training so that they may saturate and acquire the best panelists that has the same

perception of tenderness. Maximize the size of the participants not only in number but in

the category, whether they are junior high school students or working adults. Lastly, we

recommend them to use Warner-Bratzler shear, a device used to measure the amount of

force needed to shear through a piece of meat.

Acknowledgements

We would like to extend our gratitude to Ms. Ma. Julieta Casaul, head of the Food

Testing Laboratory of Central Bicol State University of Agriculture, for assisting our

research for the correct procedures to be followed and statistical tool to be used. We

would also like to thank Mrs. Lilian Villamor, Mrs. Joan Tuagnon, Mrs. Francisca Perez,

& Mrs. Celia Pamorada for letting us use the HE laboratory, for providing us with the

materials to be used in the study and for constantly guiding us throughout the conduct of

our study. Finally, we would like to give our thanks to John Consulta and his group for

allowing us to continue their research while also giving us insights as well as suggestions

and recommendations to differentiate our research from theirs.

13
 REFERENCES

(n.d), S. I. (2005, February 1). Cempedak. Retrieved November 2018, from

http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/article/SIP2012005-02-01.html
Azhar, M. C. (2008). Cempedak (Artocarpus integer) leaf as a new source of proteolytic
enzyme for meat tenderization. Retrieved October 3, 2018, from
http://agris.fao.org/agris-search/search.do?recordID=MY2015000485
Bekhit, A. F. (2014). Exogenous protease for meat tenderization. Retrieved from
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24499119
Consulta, J. e. (2018). Jackfruit Leaves (Artocarpus heterophyllus) as Meat Tenderizer.
GardenSeed. (2008). Cempedak fruit (Artocarpus champeden). Retrieved from
http://myseedgarden.blogspot.com/2008/08/cempedak-fruit-artocarpus-
champeden.html
Hudgins, C. (1971). The Training and Selection of a Panel for the Sensory Evaluation of
Beef. Knoxville. Retrieved February 2019, from
https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/3963
Inc., S.-t. f. (n.d.). Chempedak- Artocarpus integer. Retrieved from
http://stfc.org.au/chempedak-artocarpus-integer
Jones, D. B. (2013). Panel Selection and Sensory Tests. Retrieved February 2019, from
https://www.google.com/search?biw=1024&bih=440&ei=xLJiXNT-K4nXvASa-
a_ABw&q=panel+selection+in+sensory+tests+pdf&oq=panel+selection+in+sens
ory+tests+pdf&gsl=psy-ab.3..0i71l8.379806.399644...0.0..0.0.0......0....1..gws-
wiz.JNPXqmUerz4
Siritapetawee, J. e. (1998). Protease Inhabitance of Jackfruit latex. Retrieved November
2018
Siti Balgis, Z. R. (2011). Artocarpus integer leaf protease: Purification and
characterization . Retrieved October 18, 2018, from
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0308814611008387
Stone, H. S. (2004). Sensory Evaluation Practices. California, San Diego: Elsevier
Academic Press. Retrieved February 2019
Wheeler, T. P. (2015, September). Research Guidelines for Cookery, Sensory Evaluation,
and Instrumental Tenderness Measurements of Meat. Retrieved February 2019

14
 APPENDICES

Sequential Analysis for Selection of Judges

Potential panelist are accepted or rejected on the basis of their performance with

respect to a chart of parallel lines L0 and L1(refer Figure 1), which are uniquely

determined by the assigned values of P0 and P1.

P0 =0.70 (Judges with abilities of 0.70 or lesser will be rejected)

P1 =0.95 (Judges with abilities of 0.95 or greater will be accepted)

α = β = 0.05 (Probability of rejecting a satisfactory judge and accepting unsatisfactory

judge)

1. Computation for the value of K and e.

K1 = log 𝑃1 − log 𝑃0 K2 =log(1 − 𝑃0 ) − log(1 − 𝑃1 )

= log 0.95 − log 0.70 = log 0.3 − log 0.05

= -0.0222 – (-0.1549) =-0.5229 – (-1.3010)

=0.1326 =0.7782

e1 =log(1 − 𝛽) − log 𝛼

=log(1 − 0.05) − log(0.05)

=log(0.95) − log(0.05)

=-0.222-(-1.3010)

15
 =1.2788

e2 =1.2788

2. Determine N using the four equations.

P =0 (No ability)

𝑒1
N0=
𝑘2

1.2788
=
0.7782

=1.6433

P =P0 (Maximum unacceptable ability)

(1−𝛽)𝑒1−𝛽𝑒2
NPo =
(1−𝑃𝑜) 𝐾2−𝑃𝑜1

(1−0.05)1.2788−0.05(1.2788)
=(1−0.70)0.7782−0.70(0.1326)

1.1509
=
0.1406

=8.18

P=P1 (Maximum acceptable ability)

(1−𝛼)𝑒2−𝛼𝑒1
NPo=
𝑃1𝐾1−(1−𝑃1)𝐾2

(1−0.05)1.2788−0.05(1.2788)
=
0.95(0.1326) −(1−0.95)0.7782

16
 1.1509
=
0.0871

=13.22

P=I(infalliability)

𝑒2
=
𝐾1

1.2788
=
0.1326

=9.64

Therefore;

N0 = 2

NPo= 8

NP1 = 13

N1 = 10

Maximum numbers of trials should be 13.

3. Calculate the equations of L0 and L1

𝐾2
b=
𝐾1+𝐾2

0.7782
=
0.1326+0.07782

0.7782
=
0.9108

17
 =0.8544

𝑒1
α0 =𝐾1+𝐾2

−1.2788
= 0.9108

=-1.4040

L0 = d0 = α0 + bn

=-1.4040+0.8544n

=9.70

𝑒1
α1 =𝐾1+𝐾2

1.2788
=0.9108

=-1.4040

L1 = d1 = α1 + bn

=-1.4040+0.8544n

=12.

18
Table 5. Sequential sampling patterns of Judges 1-40

19
20