Zevachim 109B

וכזית חלב ⁠– זורק את הדם.

or from which there remains only an olive-bulk of sacrificial portions, e.g., fat to be burned on the altar, one still sprinkles the blood of the offering on the altar and one thereby fulfills his obligation.

חצי זית בשר וחצי זית חלב ⁠– אינו זורק את הדם. ובעולה, חצי זית בשר וחצי זית חלב ⁠– זורק את הדם, מפני שכולה כליל. ומנחה, אפילו כולה קיימת ⁠– לא יזרוק.

But if all that remains is half an olive-bulk of meat and half an olive-bulk of fat, one may not sprinkle the blood, as since the meat and the sacrificial portions are used differently, the former being eaten and the latter being burned on the altar, they cannot combine to form the minimum requirement of an olive-bulk. This applies only to offerings whose meat is eaten. But for a burnt offering, even if all that remains is half an olive-bulk of flesh and half an olive-bulk of fat, one sprinkles the blood, because since the offering is consumed upon the altar in its entirety, all of its parts combine together. And with regard to a meal offering, even if all of it still exists, one does not sprinkle the blood. It is apparent that R' Yehoshua’s opinion in this baraita is the one expressed in the baraita.

מנחה מאי עבידתה? אמר רב פפא: מנחת נסכים הבאה עם הזבח.

The Talmud clarifies the final clause of the baraita: What is the relevance of a meal offering to the sprinkling of blood? In a meal offering there is no blood at all. Rav Pappa said: The baraita is referring to a meal offering brought with the libations that accompany an animal offering. If the entire body of the offering was destroyed but the meal offering that accompanied it remains, one might have thought that it would be sufficient to allow for the sprinkling of the blood. The baraita teaches that this is incorrect.