‘I' H" il" I *I! HM? fl lfllHlfill | | > I ( UH A STUDY OF PALATABILITY AND PRICE OF Two GRADES ‘ OF SIRLOIN BUTTS 'T'nesis for 5:113 Degree. of M. S. *4 MICHIGAN STATE COLLEGE Jean Hughes Dunnigan 1943 " ‘9 WV ,- {I A ‘ 3.9”.” P.” . v by) {DIN—941’ I I I IIII‘ vi... ,.y1£.-v: v.. III.! {kit-db. I‘L‘I. .d’ I In I r O I' Jfl,w~4.ap In nJHOIu fiIonhIhr. III III." E. 5.. ,III ‘3‘ I? -p. I I 47-. . . . v..4 .Iu. i I...»>.m‘ who I I I L. .I. . I . I . I . I I . V I I . . . I I I I . I I I I. .I . . . I _ . . _ . . .. I. I I I I I . . ’ I ‘ I A t I I V . I . I . , I I . . . , 4 I I l. I I v . ' \ , I I I . I I 1 I I I I I I _ I . | I I . . . . , 1. . . u . I . . . . I . . . ; I . . . I I _ . . . I . I . I . . . I . . I . I I. . I . I I I I . . I . I t . . I . . . . . . . . I I . I , . . . I . . . I , I o I I . . o I g I . . I I a I I . . V. . I . . . . I v . . I . . . . I . I I I I . I II. . V .I I V I I I . . . v I . . I . I . . I . .I. I - _ . . . I . . . I . . I . . o. 2.. .. I . . I I ‘ I ' 'I , I . .I . ; I I I r I . . ‘ p I . . , . I I . I I , . . ... I . . . I . I . . . 6 . . I . . . I . . . . I II I l I l l V _ . u I . I I I .v . . . L . I . . . . . J, . I I . . I . I . I. I . I I I I _ . x V I I I I n .7 II. VP I I . s \ V . I I . . . N . . .. . . . . I I . I I . ( . . V . . V V I » I I. I . I . r . \I II I . I I . . r I I I . _ L I I I a . r I . I I I I I I . . . . I . 4 . t I II . . V . . . . . .. V . .. V . . . . I A V . . I‘ . . I . . I ‘ I < I I I0- . ' I I v . I I. I I. I I . . . I ‘ . I I» . . I I . I V . . I I n. . I I . I . . . . . I _ V x I VI ,‘ v . I I ) I I I I ’ v , I . I I . , . . . . . . . . I a . . . . . I I. . . I .I, .- V . . . . I I I 1 a . s . I . . . h I I I I . . . I u . V . I I I . I . r. . I .V . .1 b . I . . V . u . . I \V I I r I \ I . . x I V I I I I . . I . . I . I II I I .. . I I . I . I . I . . . I . . . I V. I I II I I . . I . I I . . . I I . . .. I I I . . a I I I O . . . h . . I . . .I 4 . .I I I II I . . _ v I . I I . I V I I I I A I o . .I I I V I n v . I . I I . . I . I A . I I I .. . I I V I I p I 4 I I i I J I I I I a I I . . I I t . I V I I I .. r I . I I . I I I I In I . . II 1 . . .I . I I. . .V . r .I. .. . . V. I . I .— . I . .. a I . I I I . . v V .I . I o I . I I I v .. . I . V I I V I I I I I I V r. . . I. I . . . . C . I I I I I I . V I I . . . . . .. . . l . . I I n I I l I I c I I I D I .I I I I . \ I I r I. I V \ I I 4 A I U I I I l I u I . I I I I I I . . V I .I I I I . . I I I . v I . I I ~ I l p . I I I I I I u I o i . I I _ I . I I I . I . .I I . I I . t . . . I u I I I I V I , I .4 0 I 'I I I II . I . . . I . h I I I I I , I v . I I I I I .I I r I . I I I I V I I _ I I I I w I I I I A . I c C I I C. I l I — I a — I . . . I . .. V I V I a I I I I v V I a - \ 9‘. a ’ I I n . I I I. l I r I I I A | I I ~ . l . . u . I I l I \ O a I I l I I . a r V I . . I — I I I I a I I 4 I I 0 I V I I O I v | - . I . I I 4 V I I I r I I. I I I I I I . I I I O I | . . v r . . I I r 0 V I I I I I h .A I I I ; I I . I v I I _ I, O ' I I . . I, I I V I . I I I . ‘ o t V . I I . I I I .- If V I I . I I . r. . c I I . . I > I . I I . a I .I. V I I I . . . _ I t I I . I I u r I I A I l I ' . I I . . . r V . I . Q I I I I ‘ ’ ' I c I I L n . w I I P a I V . I . I. u v . . l . a I I I I h I . I I . V This is to certify that the thesis entitled A Study of Ialatability and Price of Two Grades of Jirloin Butts presented by Jean Hughes Durnigan has been accepted towards fulfihnent of the requirements for Lester of Jcience degree in Institution 'xdrzdnistration 778M 3 5% Major professor Date Ray 28, 1943 4A STUDY OF PALATABILITY AND PRICE OF TWO GRADES OF SIRLOIN BUTTS by Jean Hughes Eugnigan A THESIS Submitted to the Graduate School of Michigan State College of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Institution Administration Division of Home Economics 19%} THESlS Acknowledgment The writer wishes to eXpress her appreciation and thanks to all who assisted in making this study possible. For the kindly advise and criticisms received during the course of this study, the writer is grate- ful to Professor Mabelle S. Ehlers under whose super- vision the work was directed; to Dr. Marie Dye for helpful suggestions and final review of the subject matter; to Miss Ruth Griswold; to Dr. W. D. Baten; and to Professor C. L. Brown. To the Department of Lunchrooms, Detroit Public Schools, the writer expresses her gratitude and recognition for its coOperation. II III IV VI VII Table of Contents Introduction and Object of Study Review of Literature A) Palatability and Factors Affecting it B) Price Procedure A) Description of Equipment and Materials B) Cookery Discussion of Results Summary and Conclusion Appendix Literature Cited Page 26 32 71 71+ 80 II III IV VI VII VIII IX XI XII XIII XIV XVI XVII XVIII XIX XXI XXII XXIII List of Charts Title A side of beef showing the location of sirloin butts Grading chart for cooked meat Summary of palatability scores in relation to composition Palatability scores in relation to styles--Choice grade Palatability scores in relation to styles-~Utility grade Palatability scores comparing Choice and Utility grades in Bone-in style Palatability scores comparing Choice and Utility grades in Bone-out style Summary of all the scores from the grading charts Summary of palatability scores in relation to weight Relation of composition to cooking time Average minutes per pound used for each.grade and each style Relation of weight to cooking time Relation of composition to palatability, cooking losses, and cooking time Amount of dripping from roasts Costs of roasts in relation to composition Cooking losses for each grade and style A comparison of raw and cooked weights of roasts Price relationship Average of results on cooking time, losses, edible meat Gas fuel costs in relation to style and grade Electric fuel costs in relation to style and grade Relation of weights of roasts to cooking costs Summary of factors in relation to palatability and price Page 29 33 35 3s 39 1+0 ’42 1+3 1*5 I. Introduction Since meat absorbs the largest part of the food dollar, food service directors are always interested in data on the most economical way to purchase and prepare meat to obtain the most palatable servings for the lowest cost. This is particularly important in school cafeterias where prices for individual foods must be very low. Food service directors generally agree that one of the most pOpular kinds of meat in any insti- tution is beef. Clientele tires of it less readily than any other meat, partially because it can be served in more styles than others. For this reason, in many institutions beef, in some form, appears on the menu every day. Good beef is bright red in color, well marbled and covered with creamy-white fat. This exterior fat should be smooth and brittle. The texture of good lean beef is firm, fine and velvety. The bones are porous and well formed. Not all beef can meet such high standards but can still be edible and palatable. For this reason the United States Department of Agriculture has set up classes and grades to serve as a yardstick for determining quality and to aid in fair price-setting. The price of beef is determined by its classification. These classes and grades are particularly important in beef, since they differ from each other in weight, conformation, finish and sex. These differences are reflected in eating quality and.price. The classes of beef are steer, heifer, cow, bull and stag. In each class of beef there are several grades. The common grading arrangement is Prime,* Choice, Good, Commer- cial, Utility (formerly known as Common), Cutter and Canner. The terms * Capital letters are used when grade is mentioned to prevent confusion with adjectives. - 2 _ Utility and Commercial are not widely accepted as yet, but will doubt- less entirely supercede Common and Medium, since the government so recommends. In this report, the term Utility is used throughout instead of Common. In beef as in other meats tenderness and toughness depend more upon the cut, the location of the meat on the animal, than upon the grade, although that is a factor too. Tender cuts are more expensive than the tougher ones, but they are not always the most palatable. The tougher cuts of beef come from the so-called "muscles of locomotion;" the legs, the shoulders, the neck, and the flank. These muscles have been exer- cised more than other parts of the body and so have develOped thick cell walls, dense connective tissue and larger amounts of extractives—— the factors which make the meat tougher. The more tender cuts of beef come from the parts of the animal which receive the least exercise, the supporting muscles, which lie along the backbone. These muscles have little connective tissue-~a factor which makes the meat more tender. The palatability of meat is affected to some extent by the style of the cut. There are two common styles of cuts: bone-in which means the bones are not removed from the cut; bone-out or boneless which means the bones have been removed from the out. There is an old folk saying that "the nigher the bone, the sweeter the meat." Objections to boneless cuts have usually been based on that idea and on the fact that they are often more difficult to carve. Whether the bones are left in or not affects the shrinkage of the meat. It is not only important to choose the class and grade which will best suit the purpose for which the meat is to be used, but it is impor-_ tant to cook it in such a way as to obtain as many portions per pound as -14.. CHART I A SIDE OF BEEF SHOWING THE LOCATION OF SIRLOIN BUTTS -5... Choice and United States Utility,‘ were used for the purpose of compari- son. These two grades were chosen for three reasons: first, few institutions can afford to serve a grade better than Choice; second, many institutions can not afford better than Utility grade; third, both grades are palatable and have a satisfactory texture. Two styles of cut, bone-in and bone—out, were compared since there has always been a difference of Opinion as to the advantages of one style over the other, in flavor, trouble and time in carving, shrinkage loss in cooking, and cooking time. * A more detailed description of these two grades is given in the Discussion. -5- II. Review of Literature There are few studies available concerning beef and its relation- ship to price; but there are many dealing-with palatahility and the factors affecting it. As early as 190% studies were started on this subject, and at the present time the United States Department of Agriculture, in coOperation with many of the State Experiment Stations, is carrying on extensive research. They are attempting to determine the exact cooking conditions which result in the most palatable and nutritious roasts. Most of these United States Department of Agricul- ture workers agree that palatability is directly related to composi- tion, tenderness, amount of juice, ripening, storage, and cooking. Since all of these factors are interdependent, one on the other, it is difficult to discuss one without mentioning the effect of the others upon it. A. Palatability 1. Composition: In a study made by W. H. Tomhave (MM) at Pennsylvania State College, it was found that a carcass graded Choice“I had 56.90% lean meat and 12.3hfi bone; and an inferior carcass had 60.98% lean meat and 17.98% bone. Although there was a smaller amount of lean on the Choice carcass, the fact that there was more bone in the inferior carcass is of greater importance. The larger amount of bone denotes age and degree of finish, the younger animal having a smaller bone. Tomhave states that although * Capital letters are used when grade is mentioned to prevent confusion with adjectives. -7- age is not a factor considered in grading, it does enter into the com- position of the meat which affects palatability. The conformation, quality, and finish (referring to thickness, color, character and dis- tribution of fat) contribute to the composition of the meat. Even the lean part of beef varies, depending upon the amount and kind of connective tissue. Macleod and Nason of Syracuse University (36) point out, in a discussion on this subject that the protein of the connective tissue consists of two parts,--elastin and collagen. The collagen can be broken down to gelatin by the use of heat, but heat has no affect on the elastin. Therefore, meat with a large amount of elastin will be tougher than meat with a large amount of collagen. Black, Warner, and Wilson (6) at West Virginia Experiment Station, found that meat from Good supplement-fed steers upon cooking showed less evaporation than meat from thinner cattle. Their meat samples were cooked according to the methods adepted by the National Project COOpera— tive Meat Investigators (1927). Each roast was seared 20 minutes at an average oven temperature of from 2600 to 265°C, and then cooked at 1250C until the thermometer in the meat registered 58°C. The roast was then removed from the oven and allowed to stand until the thermometer in the meat registered its maximum internal temperature which was usually from 62° to 63°C. Meat so cooked would be called rare. There were more drippings from the fatter animals than from the thin cattle. Evapora— tion losses tended to vary inversely with the fat content; but dripping losses varied directly with the fatness. The finer-grained meats (from Good and Medium grades) had more juice, and, also, scored higher in palatability. - g _ Helser, Nelson, and Lowe (25) at Iowa State College, found a definite relationship between the composition of meat and cooking losses. Fetter roasts had a greater amount of drippings. Lean roasts took more cooking time per pound than the fat roasts. They felt, however, that this evidence could not be used as a basic fact inasmuch as the lean roasts were smaller than the fat roasts. Their studies show that larger roasts take less minutes per pound than smaller roasts. This subject will be discussed in more detail under the t0pic of weight. The same study showed that a roast with a better finish was better suited for ripening. Mackintosh and Hall (33) at Kansas State College, concluded from their study on fat and palatability that an increasing degree of finish intensifies the prOperties of tenderness, juiciness, and flavor. Their evidence seems to justify the old—time belief that fat definitely improves the palatability of meat. They felt, however, that excessive fat could impair the flavor as easily as it could improve it. As early as 190M, Grindley and Mojonnier (21), of the University of Illinois, found that there were more drippings from fat cuts than from lean ones. Child and Satorius at (7), University of Minnesota, found that composition affected both palatability and cooking losses. Steer meat rated higher than cow in flavor, aroma, and moisture, and the cow meat showed higher cooking losses. These same authors also compared Medium and Good grades of heifer. Both grades yielded the same amount of press fluid, but the Medium scored higher in total moisture. In the raw state the Medium scored higher in appearance. -9- Alexander and Clark (2), U.S.D.A. Bureau of Home Economics, con— cluded from their study that grades did not affect the cooking time, but that bone conformation and fat did. G. M. Redfield, one of Lowe's students at Iowa State, (9), studied the heat penetration in fat. She concluded that fat is a poor conductor of heat in the solid form, but a good conductor in the liquid form. Lowe stated that the proportion of fat and lean in meat affects the time required for cooking, and the time required for cooking in turn affects the palatability. 2. Tenderness Tenderness, as a factor of palatability, was tested by Sylvia Cover (16) at Texas Experiment Station. Paired slices from paired roasts of beef were used in this study. The result showed that a constant oven of 125°C gave the most tender roast, although the highest possible score was not always given to those samples cooked at 125°C. Cover concluded, therefore, that this presented evidence of the presence of other factors as determinants in judging the tenderness of roasts.. Black, warner, and Wilson (6) found that the meat next to the bone was always the most tender part of every sample. They reported also that cooked cuts were more tender than raw cuts from Good and Medium (now called Commercial) three-year-old grass fed steers. Mackintosh, Hall, and Vail, of Kansas State College, have made tenderness studies during the past decade. In 1936 (3M), they found that the higher collagen and nitrogen values produced less tender samples of meat. Changes in tenderness likewise seemed to be related to the grade of the carcass, to the marbling in the muscle, and to the increased finish. Later (35), in 1937-38, they reported that aging - 10 - increased tenderness in their samples, measured by the Warner-Bratzler shear. They concluded that aging or ripening seemed to be closely related to tenderness. Tomhave (MM) states in his paper that aging the meat causes chemical changes in the muscles. These changes break down some of the connective tissue, make the meat more tender, and deve10p a higher flavor. Ralliday and Noble (2”), University of Chicago, stated that other parts of the carcass, not particularly well suited for roasting, if prOperly aged, might be used. Grindley and Emmet (22), at the University of Illinois, compared meat refrigerated over a period of 22 days with that refrigerated over a period of 2 days and found: (a) no water loss; (b) no change in water soluble solids, proteins, nitrogen, or ash; (c) an increase in total soluble inorganic phosphorus and a decrease in the non-nitrogenous organic extractives; (d) the nutritive value unaltered. Even Stefansson (Ml) in his book, The Friendly Artic, mentions meat and its quality of tenderness. After spending more than five years in the Artic, he says, "I have never eaten any raw meat that was noticeably tough or stringy-«eating unfrozen raw meat cut in small pieces is like eating raw oysters." "Cooking increases the toughness and brings out the stringiness." These comments were made in relation to bear meat. All the men on his expedition learned to prefer raw meat because it was more tender. Helser, Nelson, and Lowe (25), Iowa State College, cooked roasts with all conditions standardized except the ripening. They found little change in ripening after twenty days, and the juice, flavor, and _ 11 - tenderness were rated best about the twentieth day. The flavor reached its maximum (a “wild" flavor) somewhere between the twentieth and the fortieth days. They found no consistent correlation between the length of the ripening period and the number of minutes per pound for cooking. They sensed that other factors affected the rate of heat penetration. Noble, Halliday, and Haas (to), University of Chicago, found in their study that tenderness was related to cuts: the rib was more tender than the round; and to temperature: the sample at 61°C was more tender than the one heated to 75°C. Lows (30) stated that meat can be made more tender by: (a) mechanical means, that is, by grinding it; (b) enzyme action (no satisfactory method of injection has yet been found); and (c) peptization; and (d) increased solubility of the pro- teins, that is, by adding acid--such as tomatoes, sour cream or vinegar (as in the case of sauerbraten). Hoagland, McBryde, and Powick, (26) of the Biochemic Division of the United States Department of Agriculture in 1917, found that flavor and tenderness were improved by ripening the meat from 15 to 30 days. After N5 days, the meat was apt to taste moldy. In ripening, meats are affected on the surface first. The ripening process tends to pene- trate as the acidity decreases. 3. Juice At the Kansas EXperiment Station, Mackintosh, Hall, and Vail (31) found that the cooking losses, both evaporation and drippings, were greater from fresh samples than from ripened samples. . Noble, Halliday, and Klaas (no) studied different cuts of United States graded meats, using the right and left of the animal. They found _ 12 - that the juiciest meat was the most palatable and that rare meat (61°C interior temperature) had more juice than well done meat (75°C interior temperature). Grindley and Emmett (22) found that flavor and juice were directly related. The fibrous part of their samples had very little or no flavor, but the juice had a distinct flavor of meat and was very palatable. The late Alice Child experimented with juices and palatability. working with Esteros, (8) Child made studies both on standing rib and rolled beef roasts. She found that the standing rib roast was much juicier than the rolled roast, and the quality of the juice of the rib roasts scored higher. She detected, as indicated by a blind-fold test, no distinction in flavor between the boned roasts and the bone-in roasts. Working with Fogarty, (9) Child observed the relationship of interior temperature to press fluid. Eleven per cent more press fluid was obtained at 58°C than at 75°C. She also found more moisture in the heated sample than in the raw. Cline, Trowbridge, Foster and Fry at the University of Missouri (11) found that an increased shrinkage was accompanied by a decrease in tenderness. juiciness, and flavor of lean meat, and that the loss of flavor might be attributed to the loss of juices. Bigelow and Cook (5), the United States Department of Agriculture, Bureau of Chemistry, showed that a larger yield of juice could be obtained from meat at 60°C than from raw meat. This tended to increase the palatability of the cooked sample, since juice is so closely related to better flavor. - 13 _ Mackintosh, Hall, Pittman, and Vail (3h) observed that juiciness and palatability are closely related. They found that their ripened samples scored higher and were more juicy than the fresh samples. Press fluid in both the raw and cooked samples increased with the moisture content and decreased with increased fat content. A year later, 1939, press fluid was measured in high-phosphorus and low-phos- phorous steers. The largest amounts of press fluid were found in the highrphosphorous steers; the palatability judges committee, however, found no correlation between the amount of phosphorus fed to the steers and to the palatability scores. Ripened steer scored higher in amount of juice and in palatability than did fresh steer. h. Cooking Time Factors that affect the cooking time of meat are: cooking tempera- ture, weight, style, surface area, color, and degree of doneness. Meat being roasted is greatly affected by the oven temperature. The palatability of meat is changed as the roasting progresses; to be more specific! the juice, the flavor, the tenderness, and the aroma are affected. Conclusive evidence of many studies shows that a constant low-temperature oven yields the most satisfactory roast. Grindley and Mojonnier (21) found that dry heat caused losses of from 0.25% to M.55% of the nitrogenous matter and losses of from 2.M§ to 27.18% of the fat. At this time (190H), of course, meat was seared and then cooked in a reduced temperature oven. Samples were cooked both covered and uncovered, and though the covered samples shrank more, they were more thoroughly cooked. In another early study on roasting temperatures Grindley and Sprague (23) concluded: (a) that the conditions of the _ 1‘ - interior of a roast may be quite accurately determined, and, therefore, the degree of cooking can be controlled by observing the temperature reached in the center; (b) that the number of minutes per pound neces- sary to produce a certain degree of cooking depends upon: character of cut (size, shape, etc.); the temperature of the oven; that the lower the cooking temperature is the more uniform is the condition of the interior of the meat. In their report, these workers cite Sir Henry Thompson, Food and Feeding. In Thompson's testing, the temperature of the meat thermometer never rose above 187°F (86°C) regardless of the doneness of the roast. Grindley and Sprague also found that if the juice from the pressed cooked meat is clear red, the temperature was probably between 50°C and 60°C. Between 70°C and 75°C the color of the juice changes to brownish red, and between 75°C and 85°C it changes to yellow. At the University of California, Morgan and Nelson (38) found that to decrease the cooking time of rib roasts also decreased the cooking losses. They found the rib roasts that cooked in a shorter time were more desirable in flavor and appearance. Their experiment was unique inasmuch as they used metal skewers to increase the heat penetration to the center of the roast. More about their work will be discussed under price. The United States Department of Agriculture with the c00peration of many Experiment Stations has conducted many studies on oven tempera? tures and the relationship to roasting meats. Esther Latzke's report (27), from the University of North Dakota, is typical of the findings. The total cooking losses were shown to be progressively greater at increased oven temperatures, ranging from 13.52% loss in seared roasts, cooked at _ 15 - 110°C, to a 22.M9% loss in ribs, roasted at 175°C. The average total cooking losses for rare roasts were 16.83%: for medium roasts, 18.06%; and for well-done roasts, 22.3%. Cover at Texas (17) reported that the roasts cooked at 22500 lost 7.1% more than the roasts cooked at 125°C. Cline and Godfrey (12), University of Missouri, found that loss in weight varied directly with increase in temperature. Another study by Cline, Trowbridge, Foster, and Fry (11) gave further evidence that a constant oven temperature is best. Over a period of four years, two methods were tested: (a) searing at a high tempera— ture followed by cooking at a low temperature until the desired doneness was attained and, (b) a constant oven. Early in the experiment the authors found the least cooking losses at 110°C (constant heat), but this temperature was too low to be uniformly maintained. The most prac- tical temperature was found to be 125°C. They also found that all roasts ranking low in shrinkage scored high in palatability, The lean meat was especially affected in tenderness, juice, and flavor. The low temperature increased the total cooking time and also the number of minutes per pound. Little, if any, relation was found between the size of the roast and the per cent of the cooking losses. There was a tendency for the cooking time per pound to vary inversely with the size of the roast, and boneless roasts required more time per pound. Done- ness could only be determined by a meat thermometer. Halliday and Noble (2h) found the time per pound required to reach any degree of doneness showed a considerable variation, even for roasts of the same weight and approximately the same shape. - 16 - Grindley and Sprague (23) concluded that the larger the exposed surface area, the shorter the cooking time will be. Child and Esteros (8) found that large roasts of the same style took longer to cook than small roasts, but, the larger roasts took less minutes per pound. They also reported that style had its effect on the cooking time. Standing rib roasts, cooked to the rare stage (at 150°C), averaged 23 minutes per pound, and rolled roasts. cooked to the same stage, averaged 35.h5 minutes per pound. Relative to styles of cuts and cooking time, Alexander and Clark (2) also found that the boned rib roasts took 10 to 12 minutes longer than the roasts with bones, regardless of the degree of doneness. Cline, et a1. (11) found boned roasts took more minutes per pound to cook than boneless roasts. Helser, Nelson, and Lowe (25) said that the heavier roasts of meat required a shorter cooking time per pound than the smaller roasts, if all other conditions are standardized. They found also that the greater surface area necessitated a shorter cooking time, if all other conditions are standardized. Another factor influencing the cooking time and palatability is the degree of doneness. This is linked so closely to the other factors that it has been reviewed in former citations (see Juice). Bigelow and Cook (5), Child and Fogarty (9), Gridley (21) (22), Cline and associates (11), Noble and associates (M0), Child and Esteros (8) all reported that the degree of doneness greatly affected the amount of juice-«rare meat contained more juice than well-done meat. The juicier meat scored higher in palatability. Tenderness was also affected - 17 - by the degree of doneness. Lowe (30), Halliday and Noble (2H), Child (7), Cline (11) et a1., have found that less tender cuts of meat, when they are cooked to the proper degree of doneness, are tender. 5. Color Color in raw meats has often been discussed in its relationship to palatability. Mackintosh and Hall since 1926 have been studying fac- tors relating to the color of meat and the effect of this color upon palatability. In 193”, (32) some of the animals used for the C00perative Meat Study were of a darker than usual color (from brilliant red through dark red to black.) On all palatability factors these animals graded as high as, or higher than the other carcasses, in their respective lots. The yellow fat received the highest average grade from the Palatability Committee, indicating that at least where good, well-finished cattle are concerned, a yellow fat does not impair the palatability. B. Price In reviewing the literature available on price studies in relation to beef, the same factors that were discussed under palatability were present, composition, style, grade, and weight, besides shrinkage and degree of doneness. In most of the meat studies factors definitely affecting the length of the cooking time, affect also the price of the edible portion. Van Arsdale and Monroe (M7), at Columbia University, in their study of the relation of the cost of "edible portion" to the “as purchased" portion found that the "edible portion" varied from 21% to 59.61% of the "as purchased." Their study included lamb rib chops, lamb loin ch0ps, pork loin chOps, ham, round steak, sirloin steak, porter- house steak, brisket, pot roast, stuffed heart, and fowl. All samples - lg - were pan broiled, this method requiring only fuel, no additional fat or other materials. They found that the loin chOps gave a larger "edible portion" than the rib chops, and that the round steak, "edible portion" cost less per pound than the porterhouse steak. The amount of bone caused most of the increase in price between the "as purchased" meat and the "edible portion." They apparently made no attempt to see if factors, other than style of cut, affected their results. However, the weight of the different samples of one style, rib chops, it was felt, was responsible for the slight variation in the cooking time. This was one of the first if not the first studies on portion costs of meat. According to Lows (30) the longer the meat is cooked, the greater the cooking losses. In her experiments, she found, also, that other factors definitely affect the length of time necessary to cook a roast to a desired doneness. This observation is substantiated by the work of Cline, Trowbridge, Foster, and Fry (11), of the University of Missouri. Using a constant oven temperature of 125°C, they found that prime rib roasts lost from 16% to 2kg. Only 7.30% was lost in cooking a 7.56 pound, one or two rib chuck roast. The raw edible meat cost was only $.03 higher than the cost of the whole cut. A rump roast weighing 7.h1 pounds had a cooking loss of 9.06% and cost $.10 more per pound than the raw edible meat. Their results showed that according to the prices paid, the chuck roast was the most economical. In reading the data on this study, the style and composition could have caused the prime rib roast to lose so much more than the rump roast. McElhinney of Iowa State College (37) studied the shrinkage and - 19 - carving waste of several meats: prime ribs, ham, veal leg, lamb leg, and pork loin. These meats with the exception of the ham, were seared and then cooked at 125°C. The degree of doneness was determined by a meat thermometer. She found that 62.H% of the prime ribs, well done, were edible but only 61.2% of the prime ribs medium done, were edible. Other factors, than doneness may have influenced this result. The well done sample was leaner than the medium done cut. McElhinney reported also that beef, well done, cost $.25 per pound "as purchased," cost $.MOM per pound "edible portion." Beef, medium done costing $.25 per pound as raw, cost $.h2 per pound "edible portion." Tests recently conducted by the Southern California Restaurant Association (#2) and the National Live Stock and Meat Board showed con- clusively that low temperature roasting gave at least eight more servings from every fifty pound roast. In addition to this, it was found that low temperature roasting saved almost 20% in fuel consumption. Every detail of the experiment was scientific. Three tests were run to com— pare cooking losses and gas consumption in a high and in a moderate oven. In one test, the roast cooked at a high temperature showed 32.8% loss, but the roast cooked at a moderate temperature showed only an 18.3% loss. From this, the investigators concluded that if the roasts had weighed fifty pounds each and had been as near alike as possible, the moderately roasted meat would have lost 9.15 pounds and the high temperature roasted meat would have lost l6.h pounds. Thus 7.25 pounds would be saved by the difference in roasting; this, of course, means more money to the restaurant Operator. Food and Nutrition News (20) gave the results of some studies on ..20.. meats, comparing the number of servings in relation to the oven tempera- ture. Roasts of approximately the same weight were cooked at high or low oven temperatures. All roasts were cooked medium rare. The roasts cooked at the low oven temperature yielded five to seven more servings than corresponding roasts cooked at high temperature. Food and Nutrition News says that food service Operators are adepting this slow oven tempera- ture and finding it advantageous in ways other than extra servings: (a) saving in fuel consumption; (b) cooler and more efficient kitchen; (c) less personal attention; (d) roasts cook to a uniform degree of doneness; (e) the non-sliceable portions are more attractive and more usable. Cline and McLachlan (13) of the Missouri Experiment Station found that an oven heated to 175°C requires less fuel to cook steaks, rare, or pork chOps, well done, than an oven of 225°C. The 175°C oven takes a longer time to produce the same degree of doneness. In their study, paired meats were used, club, porterhouse, and pinbone sirloin steaks. United States Good beef was the grade tested. These steaks were two inches thick and were broiled to the rare stage. One member of each pair was cooked at 175°C and the other at 225°C. The steaks broiled at 175°C not only scored higher in palatability, but shrank less than those cooked faster. Rib and loin pork chops were broiled to the well done stage. The same results were shown. Loughead (29), University of Missouri, found that approximately h0% of the gas used in cooking roasts by the searing method was consumed in preheating the searing oven and in searing the roast for twenty minutes, and that greater fuel consumption was evident with increased - 21 - oven temperatures. Loughead found from her study that cow gave the highest losses regardless of the cut used in comparing heifer, steer, and cow. She used two kinds of ovens, a constant oven and a hot oven for searing that was later reduced in temperature for most of the cooking. Paired cuts of meat were used. Her study indicates that the greater the distance which the heat must penetrate to reach the center of the muscle, the greater the total cooking time. A variety of cuts were cooked. The per cent of bone seemed to bear no relation to the total cooking time. Cooking losses seemed to be influenced by the composition and length of exposure. She also concludes that the lower the temperature at the interior of a roast at the time of cooking, the greater the cooking losses. The fatter the meat, the greater the total cooking losses, the losses being less by evaporation, but greater by drippings. Cover (17) cooked three-rib roasts at 225°C and 125°C using paired meats and following the methods outlined by Alexander, Clark, and Howe (1). She reported that less gas was needed to roast rib, half ham, and leg of lamb by the constant low temperature than by the constant high temperature, when the meat was cooked to the well-done stage. She found chuck roasts used more gas at the low temperature because of the necessity for an extremely long cooking period. Swenson (M3) at the University of Missouri found that rib roasts cooked by the searing method required 30% to M0% more gas than did corresponding roasts cooked at a constant-oven temperature of 150°C and that increasing the oven to 175°C increased the gas consumption 9%. In her study she compared classes of beef, as influenced by braising - 22 _ and roasting. Among her many findings were, that, the time per pound for cooking and the total time were directly proportional to the desired doneness. Cuts without bones required a greater cooking time. There were greater cooking losses in the covered pan method, but the meat cooked faster than the uncovered. Another study on cooking losses is one by Vail (M6) at Kansas State College. She compared cuts of beef desirable for roasting, for institution use. pr clod, rib, and tOp round cuts weighing from twelve to fifteen pounds were used in each of twenty cooking periods. Ten samples of both United States Good and United States Choice were used in this eXperiment. The roasts were cooked at a constant oven tempera- ture of 150°C, to an internal temperature of 69°C. The shrinkage was similar for all of the roasts. The greatest shrinkage was found in Choice rib, with a 25.M7% loss and the least in Choice clod with a 23.22% loss. The cost price per pound varied from $.21 to $.26 for the rib, from $.25 to $.29 for the round, and from $.16 to $.2h for the clod. Of all the cuts tested, the United States Good clod costing $.OM5 per serving (on the basis of 70 gram servings) was found to be the most economical. The United States Choice rib, costing $.O98 for the same size serving was found to be the most expensive. Cooking losses reported by Cline and Foster (1%), University of Missouri, were higher when a high oven temperature was used. In most cases, roasts cooked at a lower oven temperature graded slightly more tender than those cooked at the higher temperature. In their study, thirty-six paired roasts from Good heifers and Good steers were used. Roasts were cooked at a constant temperature of 100°C and at a constant _ 23 - temperature of 235°C. The roasts were cooked until an internal tempera- ture of 62° was reached. The study by Latzke (28) at North Dakota, substantiates the work previously reviewed in which it was shown that the degree of doneness is directly related to the cooking time and cooking losses. Paired rib roasts were used for her study and they were cooked by the searing method. Cooked by this method, roasts required 1h.19, 16.uu, and 22.01 minutes per pound, respectively, to reach the rare, medium, and well- done stages. Total cooking losses increased in proportion to the degree of doneness. Morgan and Nelson (38) (39), appreciating the fact that longer cooking causes greater losses, roasted ribs with skewers inserted into the center of the f1esh—-to conduct the heat rapidly. They found a faster cooking roast and less shrinkage than in unskewered roasts. They also obtained greater efficiency when a high oven temperature was main- tained throughout the cooking period. The copper, plated with nickel, skewers were plunged hot through the sides of the roasts until the points reached as nearly as possible the centers of the roasts. Six skewers were used in each roast. Standing two rib roasts of beef were the samples used. The skewered roasts averaged a loss of 27.3%, the unskewered roasts, 31.5%. The average decrease in the cooking time by using the skewers was 6.6 minutes per pound. Child (10), at the University of Minnesota, also used skewers to speed up the roasting period and to study the cooking losses. Her procedure was the same and her results very similar. Rolled ribs of beef were the cuts that she cooked using unskewered roasts as a control. The cooking time was decreased for the skewered roasts by 1.N8%. - 2h - Approximately four minutes per pound was saved by using the skewers. In a study by Ayers (M) at the University of Chicago, certain wholesale cuts of beef were compared to find out the effect on yield of roasting by gas and electricity. One of the meats studied was sirloin butts. The right and left side of five animals of Good grade were roasted. The roasts were boned, weighed and cooked in a constant oven temperature of 300°F until the internal thermometer temperature reached 170°F. She found a cooking loss of 32.31% cooking with gas and 31.55% cooking with electricity. From all the five types of roasts cooked, the sirloin butts, the top round, and the bottom round yielded more edible meat than the rib or rib end. In 1937, the Review Committee of the Cooperative Meat Investiga- tions project (15) published the results of the first ten years of the research in meat cookery. This report summarizes almost all of the data in this review of literature. An outline of this report follows: Cooking losses: 1) increased by high oven temperatures 2) increased with degree of doneness 3) increased when initial temperature of the meat is low M) decreased by use of skewers 5) increased with amount of fat Cooking time: 1) decreased by use of metal skewers 2) increased by degree of doneness 3) increased by use of low oven temperature h) increased by removing bone 5) decreased by larger amount of fat _ 25 - Cost: 1) increased by high temperature because of shrinkage 2) United States Choice ribs cost more per serving than United States Good or United States Commercial because of greater original cost of the Choice roasts and because of the smaller amount of sliceable meat in these roasts. Palatability: 1) tenderness decreased by high oven temperature 2) quality and quantity of juice of roast decreased by high oven temperature. 3) composition directly related to palatability _ 26 - III Procedure To test the palatability of the two grades of sirloin butts, the standard method of cooking described by Alexander, Clark, and Howe (l) was followed. This bulletin is generally accepted by State Agri- cultural Experiment Stations because it is reliable, adaptable, and practical. The work of these peeple indicates that a constant, low- oven temperature produces a more uniform roast, with less shrinkage, and one that is more palatable than other roasting methods. This pro- cedure was followed throughout this study. The materials and equipment as well as the cooking and serving procedures were in accordance with the methods set forth by these National COOperative Meat Investigators insofar as it was possible. A description of the materials, equipment, and procedures as used by the author follows. A. Description of Equipment and Materials The institution kitchen used as a laboratory in this study was that of a public high school cafeteria in Detroit. The judges were members of the faculty, kitchen, and janitorial help, and students of this high school. The cuts of meat were purchased from a wholesale distributor. The whole right and left sirloin butts, except the tenderloins of each carcass, were used to check one against the other. The meat was stored in the packing house refrigerators, kept at a temperature of “00 for nine days after slaughter. Although several of the authorities cited earlier in this paper recommended a longer ripening period than nine days, the nine-day ripening period was used in this study because it was _ 27 - recommended by Alexander, Clark, and Howe (l). The meat was delivered to the school kitchen on the ninth day and was stored overnight in a mechanical refrigerator in which the temperature was between 6°C and 7°C at all times. Two grades, United States Choice and United States Utility (formerly called Common), and two styles, bone-in and bone-out (or boneless)were used. Eighty samples from forty steers (the right and left cuts from the same animals) were cooked; twenty United States Choice, bone-in; twenty United States Choice, bone-out; twenty United States Utility, bone-in; and twenty United States Utility, bone-out. The meat was then cooked on the tenth day after slaughter. The insulated ovens used for this study were heated by gas. Each cut, placed on a wire rack, to keep it out of the drippings, was set in an ordinary aluminum pan, twelve inches wide, eighteen inches long and two and a half inches deep. Complete identification of each roast (grade and side--right or left) was scratched on the outside of the pan used for cooking. A scale, calibrated to fifty pounds, was used for all weighing. This scale was regulated and checked before each experiment, by a service man from a national scale company. Oven thermometers with scale divisions, ranging from 100°C to 300°C, engraved on the stem, were used to maintain a constant oven of 150°C. These oven thermometers were nitrogen-filled, mercury-in-glass type, and calibrated on the basis of total immersion. The meat thermometers, calibrated on the basis of total immersion, were the straight-tube type with, pointed tips, scales etched on glass, two to three calibrations, a total length of six inches, and were of the nitrogen-filled mercury- in-glass type. These meat thermometers were used to indicate the interior - 28 _ temperature of the meat and to designate the degree of doneness. Rulers of both the metric and the linear systems, were used to measure the roasts. A stop watch recorded the cooking time lost when the oven doors were opened to check the temperatures. An electric wall clock, which was part of the kitchen equipment, was used for recording the total cooking time. Charts to record characteristics before and after cooking and to record the Judges‘ reactions on palatability were kept to be incorporas ted in this report. B. Cookery A record was made of the weight, measurements, and physical charac- teristics (marbling, character of fat, character of lean, firmness of lean) of each meat sample as soon as the sample was delivered to the kitchen; these records are shown on Sheet 1 (see appendix.) The meat was stored in the kitchen's refrigerator, from which it was removed the next day and allowed to reach room temperature (by internal thermometer) before being placed in the oven, at which time its weight was again recorded. The cut was wiped with a clean, damp cloth and the meat thermo- meter, having also been weighed, was inserted into the middle of the meat. The sample was then placed on the rack in the roasting pan, fat side up, the rack and pan having been weighed previously. The combined weight of the meat, the thermometer, the rack, and the pan was then checked. The ovens were heated to 150°C for one hour before the cut was placed in it to be cooked. Only one roast was cooked in each oven. The meat was placed in the oven lengthwise, the heaVy end to the front. The temperatures of the meat and the oven were checked after two hours of cooking and hourly thereafter until the meat was done. The time taken - 9 2 _ nomwdh mo mmdpmmmwmv "'I."'|nl1"I.‘"|"‘l"II.'"‘OIIII|“"|"I"' Moose m cpwx ampsa soaamw .m Smoke nwfimmao .m .m mufic3 mammao .m azoap Mama .m ssosp pamaa .m game an sag .m acne game .m moaoo was mafiafipmafimmo game ”mpflmnmpafi naosp amazoaaow .2 mean: .H caoap nwfixeam .: eon pcwfig .H opfiaowmw seams memo: map maoaflocml.epoz pmm mo noaoo smog mo aoaoo and ma (and mofidh hdafin moadn mo vmamapxm has numb man hapnmwam hampmamvoz meadh ham> hpfimnmuaH Apfipamdd sagas sapasmuosmm eons eons eons moasn as ImmunoaaH mapmmfiam mapflpaeosmm hapcmfiam hampmamvoz noflm hao> hpwmcmch mafiamnd ammo» ma ammo» ammo» emcee» amuse» wwwc noamapam hamb mmdoa hapmmwam mamumamooa nausea ham> mpwmcmpmm Inocnom In: uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu maps mapmpflmowcs mapmafimmp mannawmoo mapmawmme fidmaaompm no Hesaom uafimmeab maunwfiam Heapzom maucwwam mamumnmwoz mapmpfimoq mpm> Epfiaflpmaammn mama mo uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu mapfip mapflammosom emomdosop omoadocoam oceanoeohm uo>mam uuuuuuuuu ~ao>mam pang ImmoammaH mapmmflam mapflpmmoaom hapswflam hampmaopoz @moqdonoam hao> apammmch uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu maps mapmmfimmcns mapwafimmo mapmsfimme mapmnwmoe panaaoapm no awaken Iafimmemb mapcmfiam Heapdmm hapanam hampmampoz magmaflmmn hpo> .pfiafipmaamon umm mo uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu mafia» oapauflmopmfl. wooadosopp woomdonoac dmocfion nobmam nnnnnnnnn shopmam peg: ImmunomaH mapcwflam mapflpamoamm mapcmwam mampmameoz pooqdoacam Iona mpm> hpamcmpaH omasoo omamoo mach omamoo mmamoo mcfiw Amfimawv .prm mapcmaam adepmameoz mnfih seam mam> mpfimqmch madpxoe uuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu mane mapmaamoocd magmafimmu mapmpfimmc mapmafiwme fiamaaonpm go anamom Infimmeab hapcmwam Hmapdoz hauemfiam haopmampoz oapdawmma ham> apHHHnmafimma :::::::::::::::::::: macaw mapwpnmoamm wooedoaopn cooqdomoam cmoadoconm maon4 «macaw use» umooammaH mapcwwam manwpmmonmm mapnwfiaw maopmpmeoz pmoedocoam ham> hpflmamch mxumamm H a. N m z m m N omega nowomfi open ucHM .oz mamamm .oz hROpmaopmA mmflaooo endpadowamd mo .pmmm.m.b use: coxooo Mom pamco msficmaw awoomm omHMooo 94mg HH pnmno -30... for these readings, during which the oven door was open, was finally subtracted from the total cooking time which was recorded in each case. When the meat thermometer reached 70°C the pan with the roast in it was removed and weighed. The pan, rack, and the drippings were then weighed. This figure was subtracted from the first weight figure to give the weight of the meat. Tb corroborate this figure, the roast itself was weighed. The meat, while still hot, was served to the palatability judges. These slices were carved at right angles to the bone, approximately 5 mm. thick, and handled carefully to prevent them from coming into contact with the drippings from the whole roast. Each judge was served but one sample at a time; after this he recorded his Opinion on a palatability score card, Chart II; on this chart, there are two phases, intensity and desirability, each having definite factors. Intensity has seven factors: aroma, texture, flavor of fat, flavor of lean, tenderness quality of Juice, and quantity of Juice. The factors under desirability are aroma, flavor of fat, and flavor of lean. Besides the numerical graduation of one to seven for each of these factors, there are adjec- tives to describe more accurately the exact condition of each sample. Under aroma, intensity phase, a perfect score of seven would mean the sample was "very pronounced." If it were only "slightly pronounced," the sample would score four. Under aroma, desirability phase, a.perfect score of seven would mean the sample was "very desirable." If it were "slightly undesirable" the sample would score only two. Each sample was closely checked by the Judges for every factor under each.phase. The meat's aroma and the fat content of the sample were scored first because they are so much influenced by temperature that cooling would change - 31 - them. Color and texture were scored next and finally the lean meat was scored. These samples were served in a room apart from the kitchen. Between samples each Judge ate tart apples and drank water. After each had completed the chart for his sample, all scores were totaled and an average was taken. The same Judges were not available through- out the study, but the same procedure was followed for each cooking eXperiment. - 32 - IV Discussion In the introduction, the purpose of this study was stated thus: to find which grade and which style of sirloin butts scored highest in palatability; lost less weight on cooking; cooked in the shortest time; yielded the largest edible cooked meat at the lowest prOportionate cost. In an analysis of the data, there seem to be direct relations and inverse relations of one factor to another. To present a clearer picture of the grades of beef used in this study, the description of the standards set by the United States Depart- ment of Agriculture (M5) are given. Choice steer shall be relatively blocky and compact and thickly fleshed throughout. The fat covering shall be fairly smooth and uniform and extend over the entire exterior surface of the carcass. The fat shall be firm, brittle, waxy and may be slightly wavy or rough. The cut surface shall be firm and possess a smooth velvety appearance. It shall be well marbled and uniform and 'bright in color. Bones are usually soft and red, but some ossification of cartilage and hardening in bone as indicated by tinge of whiteness will not diSqualify beef. Utility steer may be decidedly rangy, angular and irregular in conformation. The fleshing is usually thin. The degree of fat covering varies from.very thin to very uneven. The fat is usually soft and varies in color from grayish white to decidedly yellow. Cut surfaces of the lean muscle are soft and watery to firm and coarse with very little marbling. The color may be two-toned or shady, from light red to very dark red. The bone is usually hard and white. These stan- dards were developed and formulated in 1916, but it was not until August 192M, that they were published by the department (#5). ‘P‘ .oapm» mama you donates: ondmdm oaogr amended oga "nemsaoo m»: a my m.m‘ .m. a a n, m, m a m NH game m.: a m m.m .m a a m .m m a m m eesuoeoz ego em.m m km m :.m m m m m m a» a m emai, soeom m.: : m+ m.m, .w, a a “W .mu m a m on seen m.: a m m.m .m m a m m m a m m eeeueeez ea .m.m m m m :.m m m w m a a a sea -eeem apaaaep m.m m! w m m.m\ m 1w, m m [N m m m seen a.m m m m m.m m m m m a m m ma openeeoz use .mmm a a a ~.m a a .nw a a m N m wmm. noeem ed M m m .m m w m m 1~ m m m 53A a.m m m m m.m m m m m a m m :H eedueeez ea. .m.m a a a ~.m a a m a a m N a use ueeem manage mesa new menu .Hmdd mmoe mesa mo new mo owmno>4 Mo uohmahxsaoud .hd. mmoafioadb Incense uoamah yobmah endgame maoyH moan nod» cosupaoo Iamm.oz aamomaoo mahpm enema apaaapsuaeen heameeeeH noaafimoaaoo on dadpeaom ma nouoom hpaaanmpmnsm no kneaasm HHH Bmdmo _ 3h - Knowing the wide variance between Choice and Utility grades, it is easier to understand the results found. First, palatability will be discussed in relation to factors that possibly influence the results. On Chart III, "Summary of Palatability Scores in Relation to Composi- tion," the meats are grouped in the two grades, Choice and Utility, in each style, bone-in and bone-out, and according to composition, fat, moderate, or lean. The number of "fat" samples in each grade and style are recorded as are those of "moderate" and "lean." From this chart, it can be seen that the "fat"* samples in each grade and style scored the highest in their groups. The amount of fat apparently affected the aroma, the flavor, the tenderness, the Juiciness, and the desira- bility of the product. The lean meat seemed to be the least desirable in each grade and style. In spite of the significance found in the composition, grade seems to play a more important part in palatability. The highest total scores are those of the Choice grade. The Judges for the palatability test quickly differentiated between Choice samples and Utility samples. On some occasions, however, when the Utility sample was fat and the Choice sample was lean, the scoring of the two grades was nearer the same, though Choice still received the higher score. To obtain a more accurate Opinion about the palatability of the samples, a statistical test of Fisher's (19) was used. His test showed that there was significant difference in the palatability of the samples in relation to composition and to grade. Another factor that is always mentioned in relation to palatability is the style. The Judges, however, reported very little difference in -35.. Ho< szmeoo zHlmzom magma Emoa encumzom - I a 4.: See 82. ran 3 3a ES .3: oi 20 .3 la 5mg .52. he 9.4. HBHAHm4mHmHQ waHmzmHzH madmo MoHomo mmqham 09 noHaqum RH mmmoom NBHAHmdydqdm >H am4mo - 36 - mmnm:. M-m0m BDOIL Into om zHIW om ’ rugs..- mwmmm>< > emde WW if». -37... flavor in regard to the style of the sirloin butts. Chart IV graphically shows that among all the Choice samples. style had little effect upon the palatability score of each sample. The factor showing the greatest variance was the intensity of the flavor of the lean meat, the Choice samples, bone-in, scoring 6.Ml and the Choice samples, bone-out, 5.73. The combined average of the palatability scores of Choice, bone-in, was 6.57 and the combined average of Choice, bone-out 6.h8--a difference of only .09 points. Apparently, whether one prefers bone-in or bone-out cuts depends on other factors than palatability. Chart V, "Palatability Scores in Relation to Styles, Utility Grade," shows the same results. Except for the meat adjacent to the bone, there was very little differ- ence in flavor. Fisher‘s (l9) statistical test showed no significant difference in the palatability in relation to style for either grade. Charts VI and VII show which grade scored higher in each style. Choice grade is by far the more superior. The only factor in Utility grade that scored higher than the same factor in Choice was intensity of aroma. However, the desirability of aroma was more favorable in the Choice grade, regardless of style. The average score for Choice, bone- in was 6.57, while Utility, bone-in scored 5.u2, a difference of 1.15 which is significant. Choice, bone-out scored 6.h8 in palatability and Utility, bone—out scored 5.58. This difference, .90, proved to be significant, also (19). A summary of all the scores from the grading charts is presented on Chart VIII. These were the results tabulated from the judges' reports regardless of any factors such as composition, weight, cooking time, grade, or style. However, they are recorded under the two grades and the two styles. From this chart, the total score for all INTmISITY AROMA TEXTURE FAT ILAVOR LEAN FLAVOR TENDER- HESS scum mo: quarts! men -33- CHART VI PALATABILITY SCORES COMPARING CHOICE AND UTILITY GRADES IN BOEIE- IN STYLE ll Yf// r/77 f//////[jl W”m ““flfififi‘“ ‘ i“““‘//Z///Z] // / DESIRABILI'I'Y AROMA I'AT FLAVOR TLAVOR 0010 I NED AVERAGES NEE-IN CHOICE son-our UTILITY 'I ll I lififiifififififi “ ‘11777 //[J FORT! SAMPLES IE INTENSITY AROMA TEXTURE FAT FLAVOR LEAN FLAVOR TENDER- NESS QUALITY JUICE QUANTITY JUICE DESIRABILITY AROMA FAT FLAVOR LEAN ILAVOR COMB INED AVERAGES norm-om csoxcr. a «.39... CHART VII PALATABILITY SCORES COMPARING CHOICE AND UTILITY GRADES IN BOlE-OUT STYLE __W , /4_ f/ _/ /// f/l r’//////Z| / /... / /_ ff] / //../.7//4(fi0 ¥////.///>/ . / .//./ /.. / /// I “a“; /44 4 4444;4444'44{////3 _ 4/ /_ 4/ / / / f/////I/l_// ///1/ / /j F/J//[////////////////LH_Z_Q p]///[///7/4 ///////7/£_/:/._L[LJ FORTY SAMPLES - BONE-OUT UTILITY " -ho- mo.m mo.m om.m mm.m :m.m mm.m H~.m ::.m mw.m ~m.m m.m m:.m ~w.m eweeeea «mo wm.m m~.m No.m :o.m mo.m ::.m H.m m.: mm.m ma.m. mm.m mm.: aw.m deem seaaaep_ om ea m:.m mz.m mo.a Ha.m Na.m mm.m ao.m m.: mm.m mo.m am.m am.: .~ deem aeaaaep om p.90 w:.m w:.m mm.m mm.m ww.m w:.m am.m Hm.m H:.m m~.m .a m:.m ww.m seem eoaeao om ea am.m ww.m ao.m .N .N Hm.m Hm.m am.m ~:.m a:.m .N m:.m m~.m deem oeaeeo om £95 £23 amen awn". @834. £34 5.35 .dwad anon qmoH as.“ go .paoo Mo nohmah mmomfioaah Immunoa go .hmah .hmamloaapxos amend mahpm edema. madmamm seHaHmemHman aaamzaazH .ea muudmo msgmnu on» scum 3.38 on» Had no human—5m HHH.» ago _ Ml _ Choice, bone-in, can be read as well as for Choice, bone—out, Utility, bone-in, and Utility, bone-out. A perfect score was seven points and the lower the number the less palatable was the sample. None of the samples was undesirable in spite of the fact that they were free from seasonings. The juice and the texture of the Utility grade scored the lowest which was around h.5. In the combined averages of intensity and desirability both styles of Choice scored higher than the Utility styles. It is interesting to note that Utility, bone-out, scored slightly higher than Utility bone-in. Another comparison made was the relationship of palatability to the weight of the roast. On Chart IX, the sirloin butts are listed according to their weights, heavy, medium, or light. There were, of course, forty samples of each grade and twenty of each style. Of these roasts, the majority fell in the medium weight. The heavy roasts, bone- in, weighed from thirty-three to thirty-six pounds and the heavy, bone- out, weighed from seventeen to nineteen pounds. The medium weight cuts, bone-in, were around thirty pounds and the medium,bone-out, weighed around fifteen pounds. Among the eighty samples, only fourteen were light weight. The bone-in weighed approximately twenty-six pounds. The light, bone-out, weighed thirteen pounds. To compile the informa- tion shown in Chart IX, the palatability score sheets of each roast were placed on a large graph along with the weight of each roast. The samples were grouped according to their weights and the average palatability score was checked for each weight group. Again, grade seemed to be more obvious than weight in relation to palatability. In the Choice, bone-in group, all the roasts scored 6.h. In the Choice, bone-out group the _ hg - on m a a T, a a a a a e a a sews ea m a m E a a e a a a a S enema as mum m ,m m m.m m m m m m :I a : aewem Ieeem meaaaep mm: a m m E a a a a a a a m ans m a a a m was s a a e a e a i Enema w.m : m m w.m m m m m ,m a a :, aewem eaueeem mum m a a H.@ m m m m a m a : eemaa w m m a a H.m m m m m a m a ca seaeez pee :.m m N N m.m m m m m N m N m h>mmm Immom anm m a a m.m m m m m a w a m pawaa eeaeeo a m m a a m.m m m m m a m a ea space: :.m a a a m.m m m m m a m a : spasm saueeem mama mem .mmad.amad mama mama mo new mo owmambd o mobmflh, maoad .a4 mmocfloaah Inmdmme no>mam nobmHhIIoafipMme maoad mean umafipaoo Iamm.oz mudm mahpm momaw aeaaapeuammn aeameeesH pmmams on coapmamm ca mmaoom mpaafipmumamm no mamaadm xH BMdmo, 2.8 mm ma mm 3 mm m mm m 33 Exam R m mm m R ma 8 i 88302 3.8 mm m :m in mm m om : pea . mu .9.“ hem «0358 .3 new 0.258 5.." non 0.353 6.." non moamsdm . .32 . oz .32 . oz .52 . . oz .eE . ea owwhobd pfiolodom malocom, aficionom malonomn Goa» Hm onmaoo 333p 0398 oag 9.13000 op coupdmomaoo Mo aofipmaom N 930 -nn- heavy samples scored 0.1 higher than the medium and light weight samples. According to statistical analysis this was not significant. The findings in the Utility grade were similar. Although the heavy roasts scored highest, the differences did not prove significant when tested by Fisher's formula (19). All the Choice samples scored higher than the Utility samples regardless of weight. In relation to palatability, many investigators have found that the shorter the cooking time the higher the meat scored in palatability. For this reason a comparison is made of the relation of palatability and cooking time to other factors—-composition, style, grade, and weight. The figures on Chart X show the relationship between composition and cooking time. The figures under the "average" column show a positive difference in the cooking times. In every instance, the fat roasts cooked in the shortest time. By statistical analysis, a positive signi- ficance was found between the cooking time of the moderately fat and th cooking time of the lean. It would seem, therefore, that palatability and cooking time might be related to composition, the fat roasts scored highest in palatability, the moderately fat scored higher than the lean. From Chart X, one can quickly see that the Choice grade tends to be more fat than the Utility grade. Only four samples out of forty, in the Choice grade were lean, while twenty-two samples in the Utility grade were lean. Therefore, Choice apparently is the better grade to buy for palatability and faster cooking, since it is regularly more fat than Utility. The next factors, style and grade, and their relationship to cook- ing time and palatability are shown on Chart XI. The grade and style .. 11,5 .. CHART XI AVERAGE MINUTES PER POU‘JD USED FOR EACH GRADE AND MCI! STYLE 1&0 3o 25 r 20 15 10 MIN. CHOICE CHOICE UTILITY UTILI TY PER LB . BOXE— IN BONE-OUT 3023- IN BONE-OUT WRIT? SAMPLES OF EACH - h6 _ mm.om mm m mm N mm 1 mm m “gang m.~m mm 0H mm :H on ad om ad space: .Nm mm x mm a an m om : asaom .ra non 338mm A: you $333 .pa uom «magnum 5...” non moHaawm .aaz .oz .aaz .oz .qaz .oa .qaz .02 away 05.4 . panms aflolomom datonom pdotoqom caisson spnaapp manage mafia manhooo on shades mo aoapeaom HHN ago - h7 - that cooked in the shortest time was Choice, bone-in. From this graph, it can be seen that the bone-in roasts cooked faster than the bone-out. The figures used in this chart were the averages of the eighty samples, twenty in each group. In spite of the style, bone—in, cooking in the shortest time, the grade in each style again seems significant. The Choice, bone-in, and the Choice, bone-out, cooked faster than the Utility, bone-in, and the Utility, bone-out, respectively. In reference to the palatability scores discussed previously, the Choice grades scored higher than the Utility grades, regardless of style. With this in mind, there appears to be a relationship between cooking time, palatability, and grade. These results, however, may be affected by composition, since the Choice grades were fatter than the Utility grades. Cooking time, palatability, and style do not seem related. It was found that the bone- in roasts cooked faster than the bone—out, but the palatability scores of the bone—out was not significantly higher than that of the bone-in. (See Chart VIII). The next factor to compare with cooking time and palatability is weight. On Chart XII, the roasts are listed according to three weights: heavy, medium, and light. From these results, it appears that the light weight roasts take the longest time to cook. In the "average" column, heavy and medium roasts cooked in approximately the same time. To be sure, a statistical test was used to see if there was any signi- ficance between the three weights in relation to cooking time. Only a slightly significant difference appeared between medium and light, and a difference of greater significance between heavy and light. Ho signi- ficant difference was found between the heavy and medium weight roasts. - hg - sundae hapnmaau * mm H:.mH .o.Hm sham .eoa mooenp anon :~.HH NH psonoqom .pp mm m~.mm .o.am anon moods» spam .eoa m~.~m oH qa10aom .pp cappanp and mm mm.w mean sham huo> moods» Esau knob N.ma m Rsoloaom .no oaapanp age mm 0:.mm scam spam shop moses» spam sum» mm.mm m an-oaom .ao an m~.ma .o.Hm swam .eoa pmom wm.:a m puouaaom .pp mm m~.mm .o.Hm pmom .eoa seem Ho.mm m anuoqom .pp mappanp.eqa Hm mm.ma menu snag .eoa swam shop oo.mH ma usogcnom ego mapanun_eqa Hm w:.~m mafia suns asm> .aos and“ shop mm.mm :H annoaom .no mm Ha.mm .o.Hm anon .eoa .easpa stop amen .eoa mm.wa m psosoaom .pp am am.Hm ..o.am sham .eoa .eqsga ago» snow m:.mm : nauoaom .pp mappaup ans mm mm.wa mafia sham knob .oqsnm knob Esau muo> .ma m publonom .no savanna ens om :m.~m can» sham .easpa sum» ands sum» ww.om : anumqom .ao .pa mom, mrmommon mm o m o muqaom no man .naz .02. Mqaxooo ouspxoa 90pm“ m can mo .pad aWdewmmu pnmfiox H .0“ oaham- fluenc. .nob4 .uobd ”0 _ .uohmv mafia mmHMooo pad .mommon mnHMooo .huaaapmpmamm on mofipfimomaoo mo nowpmaom. HHHN BMdMu. _ hg - As shown on Chart IX, the heavy cuts scored slightly higher in palata- bility but statistically it was not significant. Therefore, it appears that there is no relationship between cooking time, palatability and weight. From the data shown on both Charts IX and XII, grade seems to be more important. The Choice grades in both styles, regardless of weight cooked faster and scored higher in palatability. It should be stated here that composition could have affected the results in Chart XII inasmuch as all the light weight roasts were lean. In reporting on price relationships, the same order will be followed as that used in reporting on palatability. The factors, composition, style, grade, and weight will be discussed in relation to price and to cooking time. To study price and composition, the eighty samples of meat were grouped into three classes, very abundant fat, moderately fat, traces of fat. Chart XIII, "Relation of Composition to Palatability, Cooking Losses, and Cooking Time," shows these three groups and gives other in- formation about the cuts before and after cooking. It includes the amount of fat, the character of the fat, the character of the lean, and the texture. All of these observations were made before the meat was cooked. The cooking losses, the difference between the raw and cooked meat, and the number of minutes per pound that each group took completes the chart. The cooking losses, according to the results of this study were directly related to the composition. The fatter the roasts, the greater were the losses. The moderately fat roasts lost more than the lean roasts, but the largest loss is shown by comparing the abundantly fat roasts with the lean roasts. The Choice, bone-in, abundantly fat, _ 5o - roast lost M.2M% more than the Choice bone-in, lean, roast. The Utility bone-in fat roast lost 1h.61% more than the Utility, bone-in, lea . Another interesting observation is a comparison of the Choice, bone-in, fat roast with the Utility, bone-in, lean roast. The former lost more. If one were interested only in retaining as many portions as possible regardless of palatability it would seem that the lean roasts would be preferred. However, the lean roasts took longer to cook. The Choice, bone-out, fat roasts took twenty-nine minutes per pound while the Choice, bone-out, lean roasts took thirty-three minutes per pound. By keeping all of the other factors constant, that is, the grade, style, and weight of the roasts, the lean meats always cooked slower than the moderately fat and fat meats. The Utility, bone-out, lean, averaged a cooking time of thirty-nine minutes per pound, which was the longest of any cut. The average weight of these Utility, bone—out, lean, roasts was 11.7h pounds which means it took 7.63 hours to roast this cut to the desired doneness (70°C. internal temperature.) The Utility, bone-out, fat, averaged a cooking time of thirty—two minutes per pound, seven minutes less per pound than the Utility, bone-out, lean. The average weight of the Utility, bone-out, fat was 18.22 pounds making the roast‘ ing period 9.72 hours. The Choice, bone-in, fat, took only twenty min- utes per pound to cook. The average weight for these roasts was 30.88 pounds, making the cooking period 10.13 hours. In other words, the cost of roasting appears to be directly related to the composition of the meat. Other factors affecting the cost and the cooking time, besides composition show up on Chart XIII. For example, the Choice, bone-in, fat, roasts weighing double that of the Utility, bone—out, lean roasts mag banana -51- 94h a Magox gain—”mom EHAHS zHIRzom EHAHBD Boéom fioHomo wagon gnome 94h mesa meadow 20E" moszmHmn ho 950:4 bun ago - 52 - mm. mm. no.3 in: ”83 NH 301.com ma. mm. mmda 3.5 mama S 3133 333p mm. mm. Rh: «.2 mama m “nonhuman mm. mm. 3.3 3.3 53 m 5.28 0398 mm. mm. a}: mg: no.“ .eoa m peotqom am. mm. 8...: 8.8 E as. m 5:33 5235 ma. mm. max: 8.3 as.“ .33 m: Saigon 8:. mm. 8.8 mm.mm 3.“ .eoa i 3.88 0328 3. mm. 8.: mar: v.3 m «gluon am. mm. .53 min». you a 3.38 333p mm:. mm. 2.3 .3 as». m Saigon ma.” mmé 3.3 wwdm new a 3.88 833 poMooo 3mm poxooo 3mm mafipamomaoo moamamm.oz oahpm edema .0: 3m :8 a: 5 5%: .3. i noapamomaoo op nowdeom a“ mammom mo mpmoo >Hvamdmo -53.. cooked in approximately the same time. Along with the shrinkage, and cooking time of these fat, moderately fat, and lean roasts, the amount of drippings from each should be men- tioned. The drippings from most meats is saved in institutions accord- ihg to a study by Disher (18) and are used in various ways. This factor would enter into the total value of the meat. It would not be logical for a food service Operator to buy sirloin butts for their drippings, but, if there is an abundance of drippings that can be used, it would reduce the total cost of the edible meat. On Chart XIV, the amounts of drippings from each kind of roast according to its composition are shown. The fat roasts, as it would be eXpected, yielded the largest amount of drippings. The largest amount of drippings was 5.13 pounds and the least amount was .25 pounds, only four ounces. If a fat roast were preferred because of a more palatable product, the cost would be higher than a lean roast, but the drippings from the fat roast would compensate somewhat for the higher cost. The cooking method used in this study greatly reduced the amount of drippings compared to other methods that had been used by the author. From the discussion above, it is quite obvious that fat roasts are more expensive, inasmuch as they lose more in drippings. This seems apparent also from the data on Chart XV. The fat roasts, regardless of grade and style, cost more per cooked pound than the moderate fat roasts or the lean roasts. The raw cost figure is the price charged by the wholesaler for the meats used in this study. Apparently the cost price of the Choice, bone—out was prOportionately too high since there was actually less loss in this out than in the Choice, bone—in. Every Choice, ‘45 1+0 35 3o 25 20 15 10 -514... CHART XVI COOKIIIG LOSSES“ FOR EACH GRADE AND STYLE PER CENT CHOICE CHOICE UTILITY UTILITY BONE. II BONE-OUT BONE- IN DOM-OUT TWENTY SAMPLES OF EACH ‘EVAPORATION AND DRIPPIXGS -55.. bone-in, cut costs more per cooked pound than the Choice, bone-out cut. This shows that a food service Operator should keep daily food records on cooked costs to be sure of the best buy. Theoretically the Choice, bone-out, lean, cut would be the cheaper roast in the Choice grade (cooking loss ohly 8.58%) but from Chart XV, the actual cost is one cent higher than, Choice, bone-in, lean (cooking loss 33.H0%). The cost of the cooked meat in Utility, fat, moderately fat, and lean cuts is con— sistent with the percentage losses given on Chart XIII. The cheapest cut of all is the Utility, bone-out, lean. This roast costs twenty-nine cents per cooked pound, only four cents higher than the raw cost per pound. This cooked cost figure does not include the cost of fuel. That will be discussed later. Chart XVI shows the average cooking loss for each style and each grade. The most obvious information on this chart is that style means more in cooking losses than grade. The two boneless styles, regardless of grade, lost less than the cuts with bones. Although the Choice, bone- out, had a 12.63% lose, this was less than the Choice, bone—in, of 36.3H%. The Utility grades compared the same way, the bone-in losing M2.60% and the bone-out losing 19.09%. Besides the style definitely showing its relation to the cooking losses, the grades do also. The Choice grade in each style lost less than the Utility grade, respectively. Although the Utility, bone-out, lost less than the Choice, bone-in, the former lost more than the Choice, bone—out. Of all the groups, Choice, bone-out, lost the least and Utility, bone-in, lost the most. In spite of the fact that most of the samples of the Choice grade happened to be fat and moderately fat, the Utility, bone-in, cuts lost the most in -56.. CHART XVII A COMPARINN 01' RAW AND COOKED WEIGHTS 01' ROASTS POUNDS CHO ICE CmICE UTILI TY UTILI TY BONE-IN BONE-OUT BONE-IN BONE-OUT my TJEZITY COOKED EDIBLE PORTION SAI-‘J’LES OF EAC.. ’57.. <3Ii‘1ilf:'lrI][I Pm” mtrxonsglp 55 50 F5 35 30 25 2o 15 10 \o.' C... I... C... I... b... C... 0“. I.‘. \Q‘. C... II.‘ I‘.. ‘|.. INT'I'T', . I... .\.. I... ...‘ .UI. |... .00. h‘. I... ‘... out. "rr77-‘ .... .... "nu |||| .I C... .... 'u G... \‘QO I... .." I... “ OI IIOQ .‘.. ..‘. " c. IUCO IIUI II‘. ..“ CI'O |||l CCU. ...‘ |OID HI. .H‘ ‘.‘. 0". 0... lg.‘ ////////_/////A 2 =/:/://////.///////////A ////////////M A 6mm, IuDIIIF'III cmrcn BOMUT INTI];I,P! DON'- IN an mm pare: m pom coom mm ram: pm Pom EVA Mm Sun Es 01' non - 5g _ cooking. It appears, therefore, that style and grade are of greater importance than composition as far as cooking losses are concerned. From the data on Chart XVI, style is more important than grade, inasmuch as the bone-out styles had the lowest per cent of losses, the Choice, bone-in. losing more than the Utility, bone-out. A similar picture is presented when the raw and cooked meats are compared. Chart XVII, "A Comparison of Raw and Cooked Weights of Roasts," shows the number of pounds lost by each style and grade. The Utility, bone-in, roast lost fifteen pounds, by the time the bone was removed. This was more than half of its original weight. The Utility, bone-out, roast lost less than five pounds. From this data, if a food service Operator were obliged to use Utility grade, it would seem advisable for her to bone her meat before cooking it. Even the Choice, boneuin, lost eleven pounds. The Choice, bone-out, lost only a little over two pounds. This roast appears to be the best of the four since it lost the least number of pounds. To find out which is the cheapest style and grade to buy, the costs before and after cooking are shown in graph form on Chart XVIII. The Choice, bone-in, cost $.26 before cooking and $.531 after cooking, 52% more than the raw cost. The Choice, bone-out, before cooking cost $.36 and after cooking $.M19. This is only lug higher than the raw cost. The Utility, bone—in, cost $.22 raw and $.526 cooked, an increase Of 58%. The Utility, bone-out, cost $.25 before cooking and $.352 after cooking. These roasts, cooked, cost 29% more than they cost when raw. The largest increase is found in the Utility, bone-in, roasts. Although they showed the largest percentage increase the edible portion pound price was 8.005 ..59.. mm.o~ mmm. mm. mo.ma mm.w mm am.oH mm.:a om psouoaom auaanpp mm.a: mum. mm. Hw.mH om.m: w:.HH mm :o.ma mo.~m om aauoqom apaanpp :w.mw mas. mm. mm.ma mm.~ Hm mH.mH mm.mH om psonoaom ooaoao ww.m: Hmm.» mm.» mm.mH :m.mm mm.HH Hm :o.Hm :m.mm om anuoaom manage paws .papMMm a m a “Mom an .pH .pH shadow .pa no > . a coMooo 36m dmxooo umxooo mo 3 meme; mowmon ma mafia .pa non mo .oa maham edema magmas oapfiem Hapmm mafia pawns: NHN.Bm4mQ. new: panama .mommon .osaa mmaxooo no mpadmom mo mmmnmhdv _ 60 - less than the Choice bone-in roasts. The cheapest roasts, cooked, are the Utility, bone-out, at $.352 per pound. The next lowest in edible cooked cost are the Choice, bone-out, roasts. These cost less than the cooked Utility, bone~in, roasts. The difference between the Choice, bone-out, raw cost and the Utility, bone-in, raw cost is $.1h per pound, but the latter costs $.107 more per pound cooked than the former. These figures include only the actual cost of the meat. Fuel eXpense will be discussed later. The average results on cooking time, losses, costs, and edible portions in relation to grade and style are shown on Chart XIX. Here again, it appears that the style of meat that yields the largest edible portion is the bone-out style. Choice grade also scores higher than Utility grade, each in its respective style. The Choice, bone-out, roasts yielded 85.8M% edible cooked meat, the Utility, bone-out, roasts were next with 70.98% edible cooked meat. The bone-in styles were much lower. The Choice, bone-in, roasts gave h8.88§ edible cooked meat, and the Utility, bone-in, roasts gave H1.82% edible cooked meat. This chart is a summary of the factors discussed above. It includes the raw weights and cooked weights per pound for the two grades and the two styles, the number of minutes per pound each style and grade required, the total time in the oven for each, the cooking losses, both evaporation and drippings, the bone waste for the two grades, bone-in, the raw cost per pound, the edible cooked meat cost per pound, and the per cent of edible cooked meat from each roast. From this chart it is apparent, that the cheapest meat one could purchase of these two grades would be Utility, bone—out. Choice, bone-out, lost less than the Utility, bone-out but the raw cost -61.. .poaamm mafipmmmmam 950: Ma emu sedans“ moammfim omega a 8mm. mmm. PS. Rom. 3.3 mmr: 30.88 333p om mmmm . mmm. mmoo. 33. won: 8.5 5.88 .333: om 39. 93. $8. mama. a; 3.3 psoiaom 838 om mmmmé HR; 38% Emma mwda amdm 3-05m 0398 om wsdomvnum, ussomv pmoo Hash new pmoz dadom ammom sambo a“ meadow mmamamm mdam pmoz mo Mo pmoo Hem pmoo hem pmoo .Hm .oz .pmz 3mm mampm sumac .oz pmoo poxooo pOMooo Hosm msHMooo emmnm>4 ommmo>4 spasm paw mampm Op coapmamm a“ mpmoo Hmdm mew xx BMdmo - 62 - was so much higher for the Choice, bone-out that the cooked cost is still higher than the Utility, bone-out. The cuts in this study were roasted by gas. The ovens had three burners with an orifice size M6 which has a maximum discharge of 20,h00 British Thermo Units per hour. The three burners were Opened one—fourth of the maximum using 5100 B.T.U. per hour per burner, or 15,300 B.T.U. per hour per oven. This was the amount of fuel necessary to maintain the oven at 150°C. Since there is an average of 1000 B.T.U. per cubic food and 100 cubic feet of gas cost $.132, the calculated cost for heat- ing an oven 150°C for one hour is $.02. At the time that the meats were cooked for this study, no equipment was available for an accurate measure- ment of the gas consumed. This cost method used is similar to the one used by the company that supplied the gas and it has been found to be the best method for calculating fuel costs. Each oven was heated one and one-half hours before the meat was placed in it. The gas fuel costs are shown on Chart XX in relation to style and grade. The cooking costs for the Utility and Choice, bone-in, roasts are higher than the bone-out roasts. The Choice, bone-in, roasts averaged $.2578 per roast, the Utility, bone-in, averaged $.2596 per roast. The other style roasts cost less in total cooking, the Choice, bone-out, was $.1892 and the Utility, bone-out, $.2078. The fuel cost per pound presents a different picture. The style, bone—in, took less fuel per pound than the style, bone-out, inasmuch as these roasts cooked faster. It takes less money per pound to roast a Choice, bone—in cut than a Choice, bone-out, cut but the total fuel cost is greater for the Choice, bone-in, cut because they are so much heavier. The bones tend to speed up the cooking period, but they _ 63 _ do not Justify themselves because of the additional weight that they add to the roast. The Choice, bone-in, sample averaged only twenty-one minutes to the pound for cooking time and the Choice, bone—out, sample averages thirty-one minutes to the pound. The weight Of the bones makes the total cooking time for the Choice, bone-in roasts longer than the Choice, bone-out roasts. The Utility styles show the same results. The Utility, bone-in, cuts cook faster per pound and therefore cost less to cook per pound, but because of the extra weight of the bones, the total cooking and total fuel cost is greater than with the Utility, bone-out cuts. Since the bone-out style is more economical in spite of it taking more minutes per pound to roast, a comparison of the two grades, should indicate which is more economical. The Choice grade cooked faster than the Utility grade and the fuel cost per pound was lower in the Choice grades in each respective style. The Choice, bone-in, fuel cost Of $.0079 per pound is slightly lower than the Utility, bone-in, fuel cost of .0096 per pound. The cooked cost per pound Of the Choice, bone—in, meat plus the fuel cost per pound, however, is slightly higher than the Utility, bone-in, meat cost per pound, plus the fuel cost per pound. In spite Of the higher cooking losses and the larger amount of bone waste, the Utility, bone-in grade appears to be the cheaper of the two grades. The Choice, bone-in costs $.5389 per cooked pound plus fuel cost per pound and the Utility, bone-in, costs $.5356 per cooked pound plus fuel cost per pound. Upon Statistical analysis (19) there is no significant difference between these two costs but there is a positive significant difference between the Choice, bone-out costs and the Utility, bone-out costs. The Choice, bone—out, roasts cooked for this study averaged -5u- $.1892 total fuel cost, the Utility, bone—out, averaged $.2078 total fuel cost. The Choice, bone-out, cuts took thirty-one minutes per pound to roast and the Utility, bone-out, cuts took thirty-six minutes per pound. According to the data presented on Chart XX, the fuel cost per pound for the Choice, bone-out, is $.Ol23 and for the Utility, bone-out, $.Olh3. Upon adding the cooked cost of meat per pound, respectively, to each of these grades, the Utility, bone-out, appears to be by far the cheapest. Its total cost per pound is $.3663 and the Choice bone-out $.h313. Although the Utility grade in both styles took longer to cook per pound and showed greater cooking losses, the wholesale price of the meat was so much less than the Choice grade that it appears to be the cheaper grade. Had electric ovens been used in this study, the electricity would have been furnished by the Detroit Edison Company. From statistics supplied by this company, 2700 watt would be required to preheat the lower unit for a 150°C oven. Since there are 1000 watt in l kilowatt hour, it would take h.7 kilowatts to preheat the electric ovens. To main- tain an oven temperature of 150°C, it takes 2200 watts or 2.2 kilowatts Operating one-fifth of the time. Tests by the Detroit Edison Company have shown that the heat of an oven is actually "on" only one~fifth of the time. The combination of u.7 kilowatt for preheating plus the 2.2 kilowatt for Operation would give an oven with a connected load of 3 kilowatts according to L. F. Marston of the Detroit Edison Company. A large institution would receive a rate of $.015 per kilowatt hour, there— fore, the following formula can be used: BKW x number of hours roast was in oven x 1/5 x $.015 = cooking cost. - 65 _ mamm. mmm. mmoo. come. mm.w mm.:a spousaom .mpaaapp om mmmm. mmm. wmoo. mmoH. w:.HH mo.am nauseom spaaapp om mmmz. mag. mace. maao. om.~ mm.ma paouosom ooaoflo om m:mm.a Hmm.a mmoo.a mmoa.a mm.HH am.mm naumaom monoeo om enaomlwmmw undo umoo HoSh pom pmmz anaom ammom coho a“ moqaom mmamamm mafia ummz mo Mo pmoo hem pmoo Mom pmoo .am .02 .pw3 3mm mampm momaw .oz pmoo cmxooo omxooo Honk mnaxooo mwmno>4 mmmam>4 manna can maapm on nowpmaom a“ mpmoo Honk cappomam HNN BMdMo -66- On Chart XXI, the total cooking cost for each group of roasts is given according to this formula. The bone—in cuts cost the most to roast inasmuch as they were the heaviest. The Utility, bone-in, cut cost more than the Choice, bone-in, out although the latter weighed more. The average fuel cost per pound for the Choice, bone-in is $.0032 and for the Choice, bone—out, $.OON6. The results shown on this chart are similar to those on Chart XX. The tyle and grade that proves to be lowest in cost is the Utility, bone-out, roast. The fuel cost per pound is highest because it took so long to cook, but the wholesale price was low enough to offset this expenditure. The Utility, bone-out, roasts averaged $.0055 fuel cost per pound, the Utility, bone-in, roasts, $.0038. The total cost per pound of the meat plus the fuel for the Utility, bone-out, was only $.3575 and for the Utility, bone-in, $.5298. These figures showed a greater variance between the two styles than was shown by the Choice grade. The Choice, bone-in, roast cost $.53M2 per pound per cooked meat cost plus fuel cost. The Choice, bone—out, roast cost $.hl9. These results speak well for boning meat before roasting it. Both the Choice, bone—out, and Utility, bone-out, cooked in a shorter time and lost less in evaporation and drippings than the bone-in style, respectively. The Choice, bone—out, cooked in the shortest period of all the roasts and had the least cooking losses. In relation to the cooking costs of roasts and their weights, it has been mentioned above that the light roasts take more minutes per pound in cooking. It also appears that the fuel cost per pound is higher for the light weight roasts as shown on Chart XXII. Naturally, the fuel cost per roast is prOportionate to its weight, the heavy roasts - 67 - '1 damn. amao. mmfl. o.mH mm gamma m mmmm. mmao. mam. a.mH mm spasm: OH mmmm. mmao. mam. m.wa mm ayamm in uonom $8. mos. mam. {mm mm ems N .335 mmmm. mmoo. mom. m.wm mm apnea: :H a d mamm. Nwoo. mom. m.mm mm asaom : nanom m9. m8. 8H. .2 mm Ems : amz. mac. NwH. ~.mH om asaeoz oa pno Hma. mac. mmm. m.wH Hm asaom m nonom mm? moo. mm. mam mm Ems m 333 mmmm. mace. 1mm. w.0m om anaeoz :a an mmmm.» mpoo.e mm.w m.:m om hpwom : Ioaom .pa non pmoo Hash canon, ammo» canon de9 use: ma non umoo non vnmao3 .pH pnmfioa moamadm oamum oddua pmoo ooxooo Hash pmoo Hash saw you .nuz .oz mpmoo msflxooo op ammom mo mpgmfioz mo aofiumamm HHNN Emdmo_ - 68 _ using the most fuel per roast. There seems to be no correlation between the weight of the roast and its cooking cost. In the Choice, bone—in, group, the heavy, medium, and light averaged about the same in fuel cost per pound, and in total food cost. The same is true in the other groups. In the total food cost column, the light roasts cost slightly more than the medium and heavy roasts but by statistical analysis (19) there was no significant difference. If a person bought a large roast, and cooked it at a constant oven temperature of 150°C, she would not have any more cooked meat in pr0portion than if she bought a small roast, according to the findings of this study. In trying to find which grade and which style of sirloin butts scored highest in palatability and yielded the largest edible cooked meat at the lowest prOportionate cost, it has been necessary to discuss other factors which could affect the results. Chart XXIII includes the summary of these factors in relation to palatability and price. First, composition was discussed. The average roast in the Choice grade is moderately fat and in the Utility grade, lean. The palatability score of the Choice, bone-in, is highest, Choice, bone-out rated second, Utility, bone—out, third, and Utility, bone-in, lowest. The Choice grades are heavier than the Utility grades in their respective styles. The bone-in style loses more in weight upon cooking than the bone-out style. The Choice, bone-in, averages less minutes per pound for cooking than any other grade or style, the Utility, bone—in, being second. The cheapest cooked roasts are the bone-out style and Utility grade is cheaper than Choice. For the most part, the results above agree with the findings of -69.. o.~ ma macaw poomuoa 4 a mamo. mmmm. mm. .mm am.oa mm.:a wm.m qaoa peouonom .ssaaapp mmma. mmmm. mm. .mm :o.ma mo.am m:.m neon aauoqom spans»: mpoa. mama. mm. .Hm ma.ma mm.ma m:.m aflopsaocoz psouoqom ooaogo yam Nana.» mmmm.a mm.“ .Hm so.Hm :N.mm am.m sampsumsoz an-oaom manage .bhmm canom .uo : non pmoo do .pa pom .pH .pH .pma .pa .pmz sonoom .maoo canon manna mom pmoo. uxooo Hausa. pmoo 3mm non .nwz cmxooo 3mm .pwame .uoh4. manna sea spaaapspsamm a» soapwamm an whosowa mo assaasm HHHNN BMdmo _ 7o _ other meat investigators. There was an Opportunity, in this study, to compare style in large roasts. Other reports have been made (2), (8), (ll), on style and cooking time but smaller roasts were used. The forty paired roasts cooked for this study showed very consistent results as far as the effect of style on palatability and price were concerned. - 71 - V Summary and Conclusion The palatability and price of sirloin butts in two grades, Choice and Utility, and in two styles, bone-in and bone-out, were tested and compared in this study. Approximately ninety samples were cooked, the results of eighty used to form the basis for the following: A. Palatability 1) 2) 3) h) Composition affected palatability, because the fatter roasts scored higher. Styles apparently had no affect on the palatability of a large roast, except that the meat adjacent to the bone scored higher. Grade and palatability showed a.positive correlation, Choice grade scoring higher than Utility, all other factors being constant. Weight showed no relationship to palatability. 5) Palatability scoring in relation to intensity included six 6) factors. a) Aromas—was influenced by composition but not by grade or style. b) Texture-~was influenced by grade. 0) Flavor of fat--was influenced by grade. d) Flavor of lean-~was influenced by composition. e) Tenderness«~was influenced by grade. f) Juiciness-—was influenced by grade and composition. Palatability scoring in relation to desirability included three factors. 7) 8) _ 72 _ a) Aroma—«was influenced by fat. b) Flavor of fat--was influenced by amount and grade. c) Flavor of lean-~was influenced by fat and grade. In relation to cooking time, fat roasts cooked faster and scored higher than other roasts. Bone-in roasts cooked faster and scored approximately the same as the bone-out roasts. Choice grades cooked faster and scored higher, respectively, There was no relationship between weight, palatability, and cooking time. The scraps from both grades were palatable when used at a later date. B. Price 1) 2) Composition affected price, the fat roasts losing more in drippings and consequently not yielding as many edible portions as the lean roasts. The lean roasts lost more in evaporation but this did not offset the higher loss of the fat roasts in drippings. The lean roasts required longer cooking, but the fuel cost was nominal compared with the higher cooking loss of the fat roasts. Style affected price, the bone-out roasts requiring a longer time to cook, however the fuel cost was not a large expenditure. The bone-out roasts had the smallest cooking losses and yielded the largest amount of edible cooked meat. -73... Utility, bone-out, cost less both raw and cooked. Choice, bone-out, cooked, cost less than the Utility, bone—in, cooked, per pound. 3) Grade affected price. The Choice grades cooked faster, had the least cooking losses, and yielded the most edible cooked meat, in their respective styles. The Utility grades cost less, raw and cooked, in their respective styles. h) Weight had little affect on price. The light weight roasts required more minutes per pound than the medium or heavy roasts. There were no more servings in one large roast than in two small roasts, equal to the weight of the large one. As it seems to indicate that Choice, bone-out, cuts have the lowest cooking losses, and score very migh in palatability, they would be a good buy. If one were only interested in the cheapest roast with a large yield of edible meat, Utility, bone-out, cuts would be the best buy. The outstanding yield of edible meat from the bone-out cute is probably due, to some extent, to the use of the low constant oven temperature. - 7h _ VI Appendix Sheet 1 MEAT COOK KG RECORDS Description of Sirloin Butts before Cooking Date Cooking laboratory serial number Animal number Weight of cut, pounds Texture Very fine Fine Slightly coarse Coarse Very coarse Marbling Very abundant and extensive Abundant and extensive Moderate, limited distribution Traces None visible Character of fat, external and internal Very firm and very brittle Firm and brittle Moderately firm Soft Very soft Firmness Of Lean Very firm Firm Moderately firm Soft Very soft [A _Sheet 2 MEAT COOKING RECORDS Date Data for Determining Cooking Losses Ch Ch Ch Ch U U U U R-in L-in B L Rein L—in R L Pounds Lbs. Lbs. Lbs. Weights to be determined A. Before cooking: 1. Weight of pan and rack 2. Weight of thermometer 3. Weight of roast M. Weight of pan, rack, roast, and thermometer . On removal from oven: 1. Weight of pan, rack, roast, thermometer, and drippings 2. Weight Of pan, rack, and drippings Losses by weight: 1. Loss due to evaporation ALL-Bl 2. Loss as drippings B2—Al Total loss during cooking Cl + C2 Check 1. Wgt. of cooked roast Bl - B2 - A2 2.A3-D Weight of cooked roast Weight of Bone Sheet 3 HEAT COOKIES RECORDS Date Calculations of Cooking Losses Per cent Per cep£_Per cent Pechent Losses as per cent of weight of uncooked roast 1) Total loss during cooking D + A3 2) Per cent of edible portion F+A3 Time-weight relations 1) Total time ih oven, min. 2) Weight of uncooked roast lbs. 3) Minutes per pound Sheet 1+ Liam COOKIIIG R'EC"I~‘.DS Date Oven Chart Cooking laboratory serial number Pan number Kind and number of animal Oven number Oven Oven Temp. at Oven Oven Temp. at reg. Time temp. center reg. Time temp. center of roast of roast , O 0 O J". n. 00. £0 Min. Co Co "mpaoaaoo omwnoh< dance 7 maonahm moamz need an“ mpfipamea hafldasa mama pan um mach mo Mo 68094 muonfio«sfi mama; no he can» a 4 mowddh nobmam nohwam Inodqma “ohmmm nobmah MBHAHmdeme MBHmZHBzH puma mo ado puma mo dude pom: coxooo now mpuwno qucmna scum noncom.mo hhdaanm open mnmoomm wszooo adfifi umpasn Hoafic¢ gonad: Hwfinmm knopduopwa mcwxooo m pmonm 10. 11. 12. _ go - VII Literature Cited Alexander, L. M., N. G. Clark, and P. E. Howe 1933 Methods of cooking and testing meat for palatability. Supplement to National Project C00perative Meat Investigations. U.S.D.A., Bureau of Home Econ. and Bureau of Animal Industry. Alexander, L. M., and N. G. Clark 1939 Shrinkage and cooking time of rib roasts of beef of different grades as influenced by style of cutting and method of roasting. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bull. 676. Alexander, L. M. 1930 Shrinkage of roast beef in relation to fat content and cooking temperature. J. Home Econ. 22, No. 11, 915-922. Ayers, L. F. 19h1 Determination of the yield of certain whole- sale cuts of beef and the effect on yield of roasting by gas and by electricity Thesis. University of Chicago. Bigelow, W. D., and F. C. Cook 1926 Meat extracts and similar preparations including studies of the methods of analysis employed. U.S.D.A. Bureau of Chemistry Bull. 11M. Black, W. H., R. L. Hiner, L. B. Burk, L. M. Alexander, and C. V. Wilson 19h0 Beef production and quality as affected by method of feeding supplements to steers on grass in the Appalachian region. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bull. 717. Child, A. M., and M. Satorius 1938 Effect of cut, grade, and class upon palatability and composition of beef roasts. U. of Minn. Agri. Expt. Stat. Bull. 131. Child, A. M. and F. Esteros 1937 A study of the Juiciness and flavor of standing and rolled beef rib roast. J. Home Econ. Child, A. M. and J. A. Fogarty 1935 Effect of interior tempera- tures of beef muscle upon the press fluid and cooking losses. J. Agri. Research 51, 655-662. Child, A. M. 1937 Cooking losses and cooking time of roasts as affected by the use of skewers. Conference on Cooperative Meat Investigators 2, 26. Cline, J. A., E. A. Trowbridge, M. T. Foster, and H. E. Fry 1930 How certain methods of cooking affect the quality and palata- bility of beef. Mo. Agri. Expt. Stat. Budl. 293. Cline, J. A., and R. S. Godfrey 1929 A study of temperature and time of cooking on the quality and palatability of meat. Mo. Agri. Expt. Stat. Bull. 256, 71-75. 13. 1h. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 2h. 25. 27. 28. Cline, J. A., and H. McLachlan 19uo Standardizing methods of broiling beef steaks and methods of cooking pork chOps. Mo. Agri. Expt. Stat. Bull. #13, 73-74. Cline, J. A., and R. Foster 1933 Cooking losses, cooking time, and palatability of beef roasts as affected by method of roasting. Mo. Agri. Expt. Stat. Bull. 328 Conference on COOperative Meat Investigations 1937 Report of Review Committee. State Agri. Expt. Stat., U.S.D.A., Live- stock, and Meat Industry, participating. Cover, S. 1936 A new subjective method of testing tenderness in meat, the paired-eating method. Food Research 1, 66—7h Cover, S. 1937 Effect of temperature and time of cooking on tenderness of roasts. Texas Agri. Expt. Stat. Bull. 5M2. Disher, E. L. 19h0 A study of the uses of drippings and other surplus fats available in institutions. Thesis. Michigan State College. Fisher, R. A. 1938 Statistical Methods for Research workers. 6th Ed., 128 (Oliver and Boyd, Edinburgh, London.) Food and Nutrition News 1939 Vol. X, 1 and 3. (National Live— stock and Meat Board, Chicago, Ill.) Grindley, H. 5., and T. Mojonnier 190% Experiments on losses in cooking meats. U.S.D.A., Office of Expt. Stat. Bull. lhl. Grindley, H. S., and A. D. Emmett 1905 Studies on the influence of cooking upon the nutritive value of meats at the University of Illinois. U.S.D.A., Office of Expt. Stat. Bull. 162. Grindley, H. S., and E. C. Sprague 1907 A.precise method of roasting beef. The University Studies II, M Halliday, E. G., and I. T. Nbble 1933 Bows and Whys of Cooking. Revised edition, 193-230. (U. of Chicago Press, Chicago, Ill.) Helser, M. D., P. M. Nelson, and B. Lowe 1930 Influence of the animal's age upon the quality and palatability of beef. Iowa Agri. Expt. Stat. Bull. 272, 301-311. Hoagland, R., C. McBryde, and W. C. Powick 1917 Changes in fresh beef during cold storage above freezing. ‘U.S.D.A. Bull. R33. Latzke, E. 1930 Standardizing methods of roasting beef in experi- mental cookery. No. Dakota Agri. Expt. Stat. Bull. 2M2. Latzke, E. 1930 Roast beef, rare, medium, or well done. Agri. Exten. Div., No. Dakota Agri. College. Circular 96. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 3’4. 35- 36. 37. 38. 39. Loughead, M. E. 1931 A study of the effect of two oven tempera— tures on the palatability and cooking losses of six cuts from three classes of beef animals. Thesis. U. of Mo. Lowe, B. 1937 Experimental Cookery. 19M-239. (John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York.) Mackintosh, D. L., J. L. Hall, and G. E. Vail 1933-193M Meat investigations at the Kansas State Experiment Station. Kansas Sta. Bien. Rpt., 60—71. Mackintosh, D. L., and J. L. Hall 1935 Some factors related to color of meat. Reprint from Proc. of Am. Soc. of Anim. Prod., 281-286 Mackintdsh, D. L., and J. L. Hall 1936 Fat as a factor in pala- tability of beef. Trans. Kansas Acad. Sci. 39, 53-58. Mackintosh, D. L., J. L. Hall, M. S. Pittman, and G. E. Vail 1935-36 Meat investigations at the Kansas State Experiment Station. Kansas Sta. Bien. Rpt., 78—85. Mackintosh, D. L., J. L. Hall, and G. E. Vail 1936 Some obser- vations pertaining to tenderness of meat. COOperate Meat Project 165. Am. Soc. Prod. Proc., 285-289. Macleod, A. L., and E. H. Mason 1937 Chemistry and Cookery. 3&8-363. (McGraw-Hill Book Co., Inc., New York and London.) McElhinney, E. Z. 1927 Shrinkage and carving waste in large quantity cookery. Thesis. Iowa State College Morgan, A. F., and P. M. Nelson 1926 A study of certain factors affecting the shrinkage and speed in the roast of meat. J. Home Econ. 18, 371, huh. Morgan, A. F., and P. M. Nelson 1937 Cooking losses and cooking time of roasts as affected by oven temperature, and by the use of skewers, and covered pans. Conference on COOperative Meat Investigators 2, 28. Noble, I. r., E. G. Halliday, and H. K. Klaas 193M Studies on tenderness and juiciness of cooked meat. J. Home Econ. 26, 23 8-242. Stefansson, V. 1921 The Friendly Artie, 212. (Macmillan Co., New York). Southern California Restaurant Association Meat Study. 1939 In collaboration with National Livestock and Meat Board, Chicago and Los Angelos. M3. Swenson, A. C. 1933 A.study of the effect of braising as compared to roasting three less tender cuts from three classes of beef animals. Thesis. U. of Mo. nu. Tbmhave, W. H. 1925 Meats and Meat Products (J. P. Lippincott Co., Philadelphia) M5. United States Department of Agriculture Official United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef l9h2 Agri. Mkt. Admin. Serv. Regu. Announcement. Reprinted with amendments. 99, 1-7. M6. Vail, G. E., and L. O'Neill 1936 Certain factors which affect the palatability and cost of roast beef served in institutions. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 13, 3M—39 M7. Van Arsdale, M. B., and D. Monroe 1917 Experiments comparing the cost of meat as purchased and eaten. Teachers College Record 18, 38. ' ii I} .. i I .... [I'll .‘III 4! l ‘oalllln i] I‘l I ll. 7 L '1 ROOM USE ONLY Nov 13 '57; 0‘;- “.3155” “:1 \ v “ .g ‘ - " ~ of. I 'n . I .__-.-q \ C) 'IE'C'Y _a '.t; ’ . 1."? . 3 . n I . . \ o l I l u A MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY LIBRARIES IIIIIIII 1293 03071 2826