. 2025 Oct 6;9:203. doi: 10.1038/s41538-025-00572-y

Table 3.

Effect of adding different quantities of CCPP as fat replacer on cooking yield, moisture retention, fat retention, and reduction in diameter %

Treatments	Cooking Yield	Moisture Retention	Fat Retention	Reduction in diameter %
Control	77.45^a ± 1.23	69.52^a ± 2.50	74.13^a ± 1.43	27.20^e ± 1.61
T1*	80.84^b ± 2.43	72.44^b ± 1.65	84.14^b ± 2.61	22.18 ^d ± 1.23
T2*	83.34^bc ± 2.67	77.01^c ± 2.51	93.66^c ± 3.11	16.24^c ± 1.02
T3*	84.89^c ± 3.11	79.26 ^d ± 2.81	90.99^c ± 2.52	11.93^b ± 0.99
T3*	85.19 ^d ± 3.02	79.88 ^d ± 1.59	92.09^c ± 3.01	6.74^a ± 0.96

Values are means ± SD of five determinations. Values are Mean ± standard deviation of five replicates. Means in the same column with different letters are significantly different (p ≤ 0.05). For treatments T1, T2, T3, T4 and T5 the beef fat was replaced with hydrated coffee cherry pulp powder at levels of 25, 50,75, and 100% respectively.