H ,1 I I I HI I + H i i. II I I I I I m 124 A COMPARISON OF CHICKEN COOKED ELECTRONICALLY WITH CONVENTIONALLY COOKED CHICKEN Thesis for II“ Degree of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Edward Arthur Schano 1958 .~ *M “w A _ n -M- ___——__- "- ‘M‘X‘lfi‘ ' .— TI‘HEsIS .I t}! .1! Ib‘ ...I|¢|IV.I..I . lull-u... A COMPARISON OF CHICKEN COOKED ELECTRONICALLY WITH CONVENTIONALLY COOKED CHICKEN By EDWARD ARTHUR scmNo AN ABSTRACT Submitted to the College of Agriculture Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Poultry Husbandry Year 1958 Edward A, Schano i. In a series of trials of electronically cooked chi— cken compared with that of electric oven roast and rotisser— ie roast chicken, it was determined that there is no significant difference among treatments when the chicken prepared electronically is cooked as prescribed. In all trials where the three methods of cooking were ranked one against the other; the rotisserie roast chicken placed highest, followed closely by the electric oven roast chicken. The electronically cooked chicken consistently placed below the other two. In the first two tests the tasters were given one— half of a chicken with the skin on and the opposing half with the skin off° In this fashion they were given three chickens; one cooked electronically, one electric oven roasted and one rotisserie roasted. The tasters' scores indicated a significant difference among the treatments of the chickens with the skin on, but no significant difference among the treatments of the chickens with the skin off. In later trials, with the skin on, the electronic technique was improved and no significant differences were evidenced among the three methods of cooking used. Comparison of yields showed that electronically cooked chicken lost 25.4 percent, the electric oven roasted lost 23.1 percent and the rotisserie roasted lost 25.5 percent. In trials where chickens were reheated, the reheated chicken lost between 2.9 and 3.5 percent of its weight during the reheating process. ii A COMPARISON OF CHICKEN COOKED ELECTRONICALLY WITH CONVENTIONALLY COOKED CHICKEN By EDWARD ARTHUR SCHANO A THESIS Submitted to the College of Agriculture Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Poultry Husbandry Year 1958 C‘ I is \ “Q U \ 03. ‘0; U‘ \ a 4‘ I .ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to express his sincere apprecia— tion to Professor James A. Davidson for his invaluable assistance and guidance which enabled the completion of this study. He is indebted to Miss Faith Fenton, of the Depart— ment of Foods and Nutrition and Dr. R. C. Baker of the Department of Poultry Husbandry, at Cornell University, for their suggestions and assistance in planning the treatments. A special note of thanks to Dr. D. P. Brown, Department of Agricultural Engineering, and to Dr. L. E. Dawson, of the Poultry Department, at Michigan State Uni- versity for the use of special equipment and a very pleasant association. To Mrs. Virginia Ross, Mr. Edward Farmer, and all the members of the taste panels, the writer extends a special token of appreciation, for without them this work could not have been accomplished. The writer wishes to acknowledge his indebtedness to Dr. H. C. Zindel of the Poultry Husbandry Department for his many courtesies and to Dr. W. D. Baten, Michigan State University Experiment Station Statistician, for his assistance in evaluating the data. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 II. OBJECTIVES . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 III. REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . . 4 IV. PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION . . . . . . . 11 VI. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION . . . . . . . 27 VII. BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 II. III. IVo VI. VII° VIII. IX. LIST OF TABLES Page Ranking of Cooked Chicken in Test One . . l3 Ranking of Cooked Chicken in Test Two . . 13 Comparison of Cooked Chicken in Tests One and Two Based on the Average of All Tasters' Appraisals of the Factors Observed in Each Method of Treatment . 14 Appearance - Levels of Significance in Tests One and Two . . . . . . . . . . i6 Flavor - Level of Significance in Test One with Skin On . . J . . . . . . . 18 Tenderness — Level of Significance in Test One with Skin On . . . . . . . .. 18 Comparison of Cooked Chickens in Tests Three and Four Based on the Average of All Tasters' Appraisals of the Factors Observed in Each Method of Treatment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 Comparison of Cooked Shicken in Tests Five and Six Based on the Average of All Tasters' Appraisals of the Factors Observed in Each Method of Treatment . 24 Ranking of Cooked Chicken in Tests Five and Six . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 Cooking, Handling, and Reheating Losses ‘of Chicken in Grams and Percent . . . 26 vi INTRODUCTION In recent years a new method of cooking has been developed. Electronic cooking, as this new method is called, uses ultra high frequency radio waves as a means of trans- mitting energy from the source to the food to be cooked (3). The operating frequency of 2,450 megacycles is produced in a magnetron. The magnetron is a radio tube which emits the radio waves which in turn heat foods. The speed with which food can be cooked in the elec— tronic oven indicates that it has possibilities in commercial and home use. For example, a three pound ready—to-cook chicken can be roasted in twelve minutes in an oven using 900 microwave watts. There are two major disadvantages to this kind of cooking. One is, that the electronic oven does not brown foods very well. The other is, that if two, three-pound chickens were roasted simultaneously, it would take nearly twice as long (24 minutes) and three, three—pound chickens would take nearly three times as long (36 minutes). Electronic cookery is gaining in popularity. More and more inquiries concerning its use as a means of cooking chicken are being received by the Departments of Home Economics and Poultry Husbandry each day. In an effort to answer some of the questions involved in those inquiries, this study was developed. OBJECTIVES This thesis is an effort to answer some of the questions provoked by radio wave cooking of chicken. The problems investigated were: 1. Is electronically cooked or reheated chicken acceptable when compared with conventionally cooked chicken in regard to appearance, flavor, tenderness, and Juiciness? 2. Is electronically cooked or reheated chicken acceptable in comparison with conventionally cooked chicken in regard to yield? First priority was given to the determination of the acceptability of electronically cooked chicken on the basis of appearance, flavor, tenderness, and Juiciness. It was felt that the appearance of the end product should stimu— late the appetite and then pleasantly satisfy the aroused desire with a flavorful, tender, and juicy morsel. The second consideration was that of yield. If an electronically cooked product could be obtained that would compete satisfactorily with conventionally cooked chicken on a sensory basis, then the next problem was, would it compete economically? This study is based on the hypothesis that electron- ically cooked or reheated chicken will be no different from conventionally cooked chicken in appearance, flavor, ten- derness, or Juiciness. In order to test this hypothesis, a series of tests were conducted. Each succeeding test was designed to benefit from the information and experience gained in the preceeding trial. REVIEW OF LITERATURE There is a definite paucity of scientific literature concerning electronic cookery. The material available is largely confined to that released by the manufacturers and their research staffs. The General Electric Company has issued a bulletin (7) which shows the relationship of the magnetron to other electric tubes which emit waves of various lengths, while the Raytheon Company has published a bulletin (3) on the general principles of electronic cooking. The non-profit research institutions have contribu- ted very little to the literature in regard to cooking with radar length radio waves and apparently there has been no— thing contributed concerning the electronic cooking of chicken. The medical bulletins have reported on high frequency radio waves and their effect on the individual but these shed little light on the cooking problem. There is some recently published (1) and unpublished (8) electronic cook- ery research on foods other than chicken. These reports have been helpful because the principles and techniques of electronically cooking the various kinds of foods are simi- lar. The articles (5) on electronic cooking appearing in the popular magazines have been occasioned by the spectac- ular speed with which the ultra short radio waves cook foods. They have been of little or no experimental value. Belle Lowe's Experimental Cookery (2) has been used as a reference for the roasting times, temperatures, and yields of chicken in conventional ovens. The following statements published by one of the manufacturers of electronic ovens gives an insight into the limitations of electronic cooking. The first reference (4) is in the foreword of a cookbook on microwave cooking. It says, in part, "While it is almost impossible to state cooking times due to variations in weight, size, temperature, etc., the chef or food operator will soon find it easy to adapt himself to microwave cooking techniques“. The second comment (3)1ndicates that, 1"The Radarange is not intended for bulk or mass preparation. Beyond a certain oven load it becomes more advantageous to use other equipment and leave the Radarange free to handle the small orders, where its advantages cannot be matched“. PROCEDURE In this experiment, ready-to—cook chickens were treated in five different ways. The treatments were as follows: Treatment I"A" was roasted in an electric oven. Treatment "B" was roasted in a rotisserie. Treatment "C" was roasted in an electronic (micro~ wave) oven. Treatment "D“ was rotisserie roasted, cooled to room temperature, packaged in Cry-O~Vac, frozen and stored in a —20°F. box; defrosted prior to reheating and then reheated for six minutes in the electronic oven. Treatment 'E" was electric oven roasted, cooled to room temperature, packaged in Cry-O-Vac, frozen and stored in a -20°F. box; defrosted prior to reheating and then re- heated for six minutes in the electronic oven. In Treatment "A“, an oven temperature of 325°F.(2) was used and the chickens were roasted for one hour and forty-five minutes. These rcady-to—cook chickens were roasted in uncovered pans to obtain the best possible roast- ing results (2). Belle Lowe says in regard to roasted chicken, "The scores showed that in aroma, flavor, and juici- ness, the breast of the uncovered halves were more desirable than the breast of the covered halves. No preference for the thigh was shown for either covered or uncovered halves". Treatment “B“, roasting with a rotisserie, was the second method used. In this treatment the manufacturer's instructions served as the guide for cooking the chickens. In tests one and two, the cooking was done in home size rotisseries with a capacity of two roasting chickens. In tests three through six, the roasting was done on a large commercial rotisserie with a capacity of thirty-five roasters. In the home size rotisserie, the chickens were cooked on high range for one hour and twenty—five minutes and then removed from the spits. The same procedure was followed when using the commercial rotisserie. In Treatment "C”, the chickens were electronically roasted in ovens manufactured by two different companies. The oven used in tests one and two was a Radarange produced by the Raytheon Manufacturing Company. The oven used in tests three through six was a R.C.A. Whirlpool, manufac» tured by the Radio Corporation of America. In all tests a microwave wattage of approximately 900 watts was used. Three chickens were cooked at one time and were in the oven thirty-six minutes. In Treatment "D", the chickens were rotisserie roasted for one hour and twenty-five minutes; then removed from the spits; cooled to room temperature; Cry—OAVac packaged; and frozen and stored in a -20°F. box. The fro» zen packages were placed in a 60°F. box eighteen hours pri— or to reheating. The chickens were completely defrosted before being placed in the electronic oven. Three chickens were electronically heated at one time. They were heated a total of six minutes - three minutes with the breast down and three minutes with the breast up. In Treatment "E", the chickens were electric oven roasted for one hour and forty-five minutes at 325°F.; cooled to room temperature; Cry-04Vac packaged; and treated in a manner similar to the chickens in Treatment "D“. The fryers in all trials and for all methods of cooking were ten-week old White Plymouth Rocks. These young chickens averaged 966 grams (2.1-; pounds) ready-to— cook. All fryers were lightly salted prior to cooking. Special handling of chickens for the various treat- ments was as follows: 1.. Electric oven roast chickens were trussed in the conventional manner, legs secured to the tail-head, and wings folded over the back. These birds were basted with their own drippings approximately twenty minutes before.removal from the oven. 2. Rotisserie roast chickens were secured to the spit and cooked for the prescribed time. Basting was not necessary because of the self basting action of the rotisserie. ‘ 3. Electronically cooked chickens were done in two ways. The first method was used in tests one and two. The fryers were trussed as roasters and were rotated one— half turn every six minutes during the cooking process. In tests three through six a new technique was used. This technique is the result of experience gained in the first two tests. In addition to turning the chickens every six minutes, the skin of each chicken was pierced eight times in the leg and breast areas with the tines of a fork and aluminum foil was wrapped around the hock joint of each leg to reflect the radio waves. The foil was removed for the last six minutes of cooking. The skin was pierced to improve browning and the aluminum foil was used to prevent the lower leg from becoming too well done° 4. The chickens used in tests one and two were ready-to-cook iced fryers. In all other tests they were ready-to-cook frozen fryers stored at -20°F. for four months. The members of the taste panel were selected from among the graduate students, secretaries, and staff members of the Poultry Husbandry and Agricultural Engineering De- partments. Therefore, there were all degrees of experience in taste panel work. Symbols were used to identify the various samples and to prevent positive identification of the different methods of cooking. All chickens were scored against a prescribed stan- dard in which the best score was one and the poorest score was five. One was equivalent to excellent; two was very .good; three was good; four was fair; and five was poor. The factors on which the samples were scored were appearance, flavor, tenderness, Juiciness. and doneness. In cases where the chicken was ranked, the tasters were asked to compare one sample against the other. 10 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The first two tests were designed to test the hypo- thesis that chickens cooked electronically would look and taste the same as conventionally cooked chicken. The procedure for tests one and two was as follows: Three chickens were given Treatment "A"; three were given Treatment “B"; and three were given Treatment "C". After cooking, each chicken was divided into four portions, the portions from the left halves of the chickens were served with the skin intact while the portions of the right halves were served with the skin removed. Each panel member received two portions from each of the Treatments, A, B, and C. The two portions from a treatment were the Opposite members of the same chicken; one portion with the skin intact and the other portion with the skin removed. The cooking schedule was so arranged that all chicken would be ready to sample at the same time. In this way the samples, when served to the taste panel, were of uniform temperature. The panel members scored each sample for appearance, flavor, tenderness, and Juiciness from one (excellent) to five (poor). In addition to this, they also ranked the samples one against the others on a one, two, three, basis. Tables I and II show the results of the first two tests. In all four parts of the two tests, with skin on and with skin off, the rotisserie roast chicken ranked 12 first. Roast chicken was next best except for Test One, with skin off. In this case, it was tied with rotisserie roast for first place. In all cases, the electronically cooked chickens placed last. One possible reason for this placing is the fact that the rotisserie and oven roasted chicken had an attractive golden brown color while the electronically cooked fryers were still a light yellow color. Table III shows the average of all the tasters' scores for a Specific factor under a particular treatment. For instance, in Test 1, with skin on, in Treatment ”B" for tenderness, the average score by eight tasters is 1.50. This is a very high rating since 1.0 is the best possible score. In the same test with skin off, which is the oppo- sing half of the same chicken, the average score is 2.13. Analysis of Tables I, II, and III, shows the impor- tance that appearance has in influencing the Judgement of the members of a taste panel. The taste panel members show a preference for the browner appearing birds. This was indicated by their ranking of the three treatments. This influence apparently carried over into their consideration' of flavor, tenderness, and Juiciness. 13 TABLE I RANKING 0F COOKED CHICKEN IN TEST ONE EIGHT TASTERS Skin On Skin Off Treatment A B C A B C No. of 1’s 1 6 1 2 3 1 No. of 2's 5 2 1 5 3 1 No. of 3's _2._ __Q_ 6 l 2 __.6__ Total Score* 17 10 21 15 15 21 Av. Score 2.13 1.25 2.63 1.88 1.88 2.63 Rank** 2 1 3 1-2 1—2 3 TABLE II RANKING OF COOKED CHICKEN IN TEST TWO SIX TASTERS Skin On Skin Off Treatment A B C A B C No. of 1's 2 3 1 l 4 1 No. of 2's 3 2 1 4 1 1 No. of 3's 1 l 4 ‘;L_ _J__ 4 Total Score* 11 10 15 _12 9 15 Av. Score 1.84 1.67 2.50 2.00 1.50 2.50 Rank** 2 1 3 2 l 3 * To obtain the total score multiply the number under the treatment by the number of 1'3, 2'8, or 3’s. Add these together for a total score. ** A value of "l" is the best score and a value of "3" is the poorest score. This applies to all rankings. 14 TABLE III COMPARISON OF COOKED CHICKEN IN TESTS ONE AND TWO BASED ON THE.AVERAGE OF ALL TASTERS' APPRAISALS OF THE FACTORS OBSERVED IN EACH METHOD OF TREATMENT Test One - Eight Tasters Skin On Skin Off* A B C .5: B C Appearance 2.75 1.38 3.75** — - - Flavor 2.63 2.00 3.38 2.25 2.50 2.88 Tenderness 2.75 1.50 3.13 2.13 2.13 3.13 Juiciness 2.63 1.88 3.00 2.50 2.75 2.63 Test Two ~- Six Tasters Skin On Skin Off* A B C A .___g C Appearance 3.50 1.84 3.50** - m — Flavor 2.84 2.67 2.67 2.84 2.17 3.33 Tenderness 2.33 2.00 2.50 2.50 2.84 2.84 Juiciness 3.00 2.84 2.17 3.33 3.50 3.33 _ _— _ i ———-— * Appearance not Judge in skin off samples. ** Average score of all tasters. Scores 1 through 5. Best score is "l“. 15 Tables IV, V, and VI are statistical analyses of the data obtained from the three methods of cooking chickens. Analysis of variance used in these tables is according to Snedecor's (6) method. In Table IV, referring to appearance Test One, the data indicate that considering. two treatments with twenty- one degrees of freedom, Treatment "B" is significantly better than Treatment "A" and Treatment "C"; and that Treatment "A" is significantly better than.Treatment "C". With three treatments and twenty-one degrees of freedom, Treatment "B" is significantly better than Treatment “A" and Treatment "C”; and that Treatment "A" is significantly better than Treatment “C". Again in Table IV, considering Test Two, with skin on, the data show that in two treatments with fifteen degrees of freedom, Treatment '3“ is significantly better than Treatment "A" and Treatment '0', but there is no significant difference between Treatment “A" and Treatment "C“. The same holds true for three treatments and fifteen degrees of freedom. In Table V, referring to flavor in Test One, the data show that in two treatments with twenty-one degrees of freedom, Treatment ”B' is significantly better than Treatment "C“, but not significantly different from Treatment “A“. With three treatments and twenty-one degrees of freedom the results are similar. 16 TABLE IV APPEARANCE - LEVELS OF SIGNIFICANCE IN TESTS ONE AND TWO Test One - Skin On d.f. S.S. M.S. F. Total 23 38.0 Treatments 2 23.0 11.5 28.05** Individuals ‘__:_ _9;3 _i:33 Error 14 5.7 .41 ** Significant at 1 percent level of probability, analysis of variance. Test Two - Skin 0n dofo S.S. M.S. F. Total 17 21.0 Treatments 2. 11.0 5.5 6.11* Individuals 5 1.0 .2 Error 10 9.0 .9 * Significant at 5 percent level of probability, analysis of variance. 17 The data on tenderness in Table VI., show that considering two treatments with twenty-one degrees of freedom, Treatment "B" is significantly better than Treat— ment “A“ or Treatment '0', and that Treatment "A" is also significantly better than Treatment "C“. With three treat— ments and twenty-one degrees of freedom, Treatment "B“ is significantly better than Treatment ‘C', but Treatment "A" is not. The preceeding tables numbered IV., V., and VI., show clearly that skin appearance or some other element related to the skin of the chicken influenced the tasters in regard to the factors of flavor and tenderness. This appears obvious because a statistically significant dif- ference was obtained from treatments of the halves of chicken with the skin on and no significant difference was found in the treatments of the halves with the skin off. This posed a new problem. Was it the lack of browning in the electronically cooked chicken which was causing the tasters to down grade the Treatment ‘0' birds or was it some other element related to the skin? The conspicuous lack of golden brown color on the radio wave treated chicken dictated the course of action. A way to brown the Treatment "C“ chicken must be found before proceeding with the experiment. The procedure followed in Tests Three and Four were identical with Tests One and Two except for these changes: 18 TABLE V FLAVOR -— LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE IN TEST ONE WITH SKIN ON d.f. S.S. M.S. F. Total 23 23.6 Treatments 2 7.8 3.9 5.3* Individuals ‘__7_ 5.5 .__;:9 ______ Error 14 10.3 .74 * Significant at 5 percent level of probability, analysis of variance. TABLE VI. TENDERNESS - LEVEL OF SIGNIFICANCE IN TEST ONE WITH SKIN 9N d.f. S.S. M.S. F. Total 23 26.0 Treatments 2 11.6 5.8 6.9** Individuals 7 2.8 .4 ._____ Error 14 11.6 .83 ** Significant at 1 percent level of probability, analysis of variance. 19 l. The chickens used in the first tests were fresh» iced fryers. The chickens used in Tests Three and Four were Cry-04Vac packaged fryers held at ~200F. for four months. 2. The Treatment "C" chickens used in the early tests did not have the skin pierced. In Tests Three and Four, each chicken was punctured eight times with the tines of a fork. 3. The hocks of Treatment "C" chickens were wrapped with aluminum foil. In Tests One and Two, foil was not used and as a result the skin split; and the muscle shor- tened and pulled away from the bone. In Tests Three and Four, aluminum foil was used with marked improvement of the appearance of the flesh above the hook Joint. 4. The fourth change bears special consideration because it involves a maJor change in procedure. Treat— ment "B", rotisserie roast chicken, was Judged the best method of treatment by the taste panel and since freezing of chickens is an attempt to preserve quality rather than to improve it, the rotisserie roast birds were selected for freezing. Treatment “D" is rotisserie roast chicken, frozen and reheated as described earlier. This procedure was followed in an effort to determine the usefulness of electronic energy in reheating frozen pre—cooked chicken. All chickens to be cooked or reheated by the various methods were placed in the 60°F. cooler at noon the day before the taste panel was to meet. They were completely defrosted by 8:00 a.m. the following day. The day of the 20 panel meeting the birds were weighed, salted and cooked as previously described. The chickens which had been rotis- serie roasted several weeks before, were also weighed and salted and were then placed for six minutes in the electro~ nic oven. . The chickens were served to the taste panel members while warm. All portions were served with the skin on. The tasters' opinions of the treatments used in Tests Three and Four are shown in Table VII. The statistical analyses of the data showed no significant difference for any factor among the treatments. There are several possible reaans for a lack of significant difference among the factors involved in this test. One is that the electronically cooked chickens looked much better in these tests than they did in Tests One and Two. They were browns: but not as brown as the oven roast or rotisserie roast chicken, and the skin of the drumstick extended smoothly and in a moist condition to the hock Joint. The second reason is that the rotisserie roast chicken, which was ranked as the most desirable method of cooking in Tests One and Two, was replaced by electric oven roast chicken as the standard of comparison for Tests Three and Four. Referring to Table III so that a comparison of rotisserie roast chicken with rotisserie roast, frozen, and electronically heated chicken can be made, it must be concluded that there is a difference between each factor TABLE VII COMPARISON OF COOKED CHICKENS IN TESTS THREE AND FOUR BASED ON THE AVERAGE OF ALL TASTERS' APPRAISALS OF THE FACTORS OBSERVED IN EACH METHOD OF TREATMENT — SIX TASTERS Test Three* Treatment A D C Appearance 1.83 2.17 3.00 Flavor 1.83 2.33 2.33 Tenderness 1.83 1.83 2.17 Juiciness 2.33 2.33 2.33 Doneness 1.50 2.00 3.00 Test Four* Treatment A D C Appearance 1.67 2.00 3.00 Flavor 2.00 3.00 2.50 Tenderness 1.33 2.33 2.17 Juiciness 1.83 2.83 2.33 Doneness 1.67 2.83 2.00 * Six Judges scoring. Score 1 through 5. Best score is l. 22 of appearance, flavor, tenderness, and juiciness in favOr of the rotisserie roast chicken. The important considera— tion is that the samples were well accepted and that with— in tests there was no significant difference among the treatments. Tests Five and Six were similar to Tests Three and Four with one exception. In these tests, there were four treatments whereas the other tests had only three treat- ments. The chickens receiving the fourth treatment in these tests were electric oven roasted; cooled to room tempera- ture; packaged in Cry—O-Vac; frozen and stored with the other fryers in the —200F. freezer. This treatment was included in an effort to obtain more data on the weight losses of pre-cooked, electronically reheated chicken and to provide another comparison. In these tests each taster was served four portions of warm chicken. The portions were of the following treatments: A 1. Treatment "A", electric oven roast. 2. Treatment *D', rotisserie roast, frozen and reheated in-the electronic oven. 3. Treatment "C", electronically cooked; and 4. Treatment "E", oven roast, frozen and reheated in the electronic oven. The reheated portions were heated for six minutes in the electronic oven, three minutes on each side. 23 The tasters' opinions of the four treatments inclu- ded in these tests are shown in Tables VIII and IX. Table VIII shows the average score for six tasters in Tests Five and Six. The statistical analyses of the data shows no significant difference for any of the factors of appear— ance, flavor, tenderness, Juiciness, and doneness. The ranking of the four treatments, which is shown in Table IX indicates that there is a preference for elec- tric oven roast and electronic cooked chicken over the electronically reheated chicken. Further studies, incor— porating the findings of this study and the practical experiences gained during the experiment are recommended. Table X shows the cooking, handling, and reheating losses incurred during Tests Three through Six. The losses are given in grams and percent for each of the four treat- ments involved. The data show that oven roast chickens lost 23.1 percent by weight while that of electronically cooked chicken lost 25.4 percent. This agrees with Belle Lowe's report in— dicating a loss of 21.6 percent for fryers and 25.0 percent for broilers. Freezer loss for electric oven roast was 0.9 percent and for rotisserie roast was 0.8 percent. The volatile loss of reheating was 3.6 and 2.2 percent. There was no measurable drip. The total loss was 28.3 percent for the reheated electric oven roast and 28.5 percent for the reheated rotisserie roast. TABLE VIII COMPARISON OF COOKED CHICKEN IN TESTS FIVE AND SIX BASED ON THE AVERAGE OF ALL TASTERS' OF THE FACTORS OBSERVED IN EACH METHOD Test Five* OF TREATMENT .APPRAISALS Treatment A D C E Appearance 2.00 2.50 2.33 1.83 Flavor 2.83 3.67 2.83 3.33 Tenderness 2.83 2.83 2.50 2.33 Juiciness 2.17 2.83 2.00 2.83 Doneness 2.33 2.17 2.50 2.17 Test Six* Treatment A D C ' E Appearance 2.33 2.67 3.0 2.17 Flavor 2.33 4.00 2.17 3.00 Tenderness' 2.00 2.50 2.00 2.00 Juiciness 2.50 2.17 1.83 2.17 Doneness 1.83 2.50 1.83 2.00 i * Six Judges scoring. is 1. Score 1 through 5. Best score 24 25 TABLE IX RANKING OF COOKED CHICKEN IN TESTS FIVE AND SIX TEN TASTERS* Treatment A D C E Number of l's** 5 O 5 0 Number of 2's 2 l 2 5 Number of 3's 3 5 2 0 Number of 4's _0_ 4 l 5 Total Score 18 33 19 30 Average Score 1.8 3.3 1.9 3.0 Rank 1 4 2 3 * There were twelve persons on two taste panels, but only ten ranked the four treatments. ** A value of 1 is the highest rank and a value of 4 is the lowest rank. 26 .NHm 6:6 0>Hh memos as macaw use copmop mun“: mouse zfiso * m.mm oom.m a.mm one e.m~ ooe.m a.mm see.m Hepoe m.o mm m.o em heuoehh m.m mam m.m ea m.m mmo m.m mam ass: m.em evo.m m.mm ewe o.m~ mm~.m m.m~ mmm.m mfifipszo> o>upmasazo m.m mom o.m mm asses odanSmmea so: efinwhsmmoa no: man: m.m mom o.m ma mzfipefio> . . wnapmonom m.o mm m.o em houoohm m.nm em~.m m.mm ewe «.mm ooe.m a.mm pee.m Hepoe m.m mmm m.m em m.m mac m.m man may: a.mm mee.m m.om new a.mz mm~.m m.m~ mmm.m eaqpeflo> mangoes HefipfinH o.oo~ mom.mz o.oo~ *eeo.m o.oo~ omm.od o.oo~ msm.- geese: defiesam unschea mashw Quechon mawhw sacchom mashm pseohem macaw : m o < ezm29