EFFECT OF SELECTED TIMES AND TEMPERATURES DURING HOLDING ON THE QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS AND THIAMINE CONTEI‘IT 0F ROAST BEEF Thesis for the Degree of M. S. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY MARY ANN BOYLE 1968 j? ‘flfiv‘l‘: I LIBRARY ”’ I; B.~Iichigan State j 1% Ljuivert-ai-‘j f 'a.. BINDING BY V 0A8 & SIIIIS' BIIIIII BINDERY INC. LIBRARY amoms "m“‘fiy. women] I IILL: w | 9’ II -4h'" ALA-J‘- ,‘HI" .l', 7 u“ ' «8"- ABSTRACT EFFECT OF SELECTED TIMES AND TEMPERATURES DURING HOLDING ON THE QUALITY CHARACTERISTICS AND THIAMINE CONTENT OF ROAST BEEF by Mary Ann Boyle This study compared selected times and temperatures of holding and/or reheating on the palatability character- istics, weight losses and thiamine content of U. S. Choice grade beef loins. Heat transfer during cooking and holding were also examined. All roasts were cooked in a 1490C. oven to an internal temperature of 540C. as recorded by a potentiometer lead positioned in the center of the meat. After removal from the oven, roasts stood undisturbed at room temperature for 50 min. Roasts serving as the control were sliced and served immediately. For holding methods one and two, roasts were held unsliced and sliced, respectively, over dry heat for 90 min. For the third method, roasts were refrigerated for approximately 24 hr. and then sliced and reheated to an in- ternal temperature of 600C. An average of 95 min. was needed to cook the roasts to the rare stage of doneness. The average maximum tempera- ture rise observed during the 30-min. standing period was 60°C. Mary Ann Boyle During the 90 min. holding period, the temperature of roasts held unsliced rose from an initial temperature of 55.50C. to an average of 580C. while roasts held sliced rose to an average temperature of 590C. from an initial tempera- ture of 48.50C. The refrigerated roasts had an average decline in temperature from 56.50C. to 4.50C. which required an average time of 7 hr. and 48 min. .Except for a slight initial lag, a continuous rapid rate of temperature rise during the average 67.2 min. reheating period was noted. Total, drip and volatile cooking losses did not differ significantly among treatments or animals. Total and drip holding losses were significantly higher (p.g 0.01) for roasts held sliced than for roasts held unsliced which in turn were significantly higher (P's 0.01) than similar losses incurred during refrigerated holding. Volatile holding losses attributable to treatment were not significant. The accumulative total losses from roasts served immediately and roasts held unsliced were significantly lower (P's 0.01) than those from roasts held sliced which in turn were significantly lower (P.g 0.01) than similar losses from roasts refrigerated and reheated. The weight of servable meat decreased in order for roasts served immediately, roasts held unsliced, roasts held sliced and roasts refrigerated and reheated. Analyses of subjective evaluations showed roasts served immediately or held unsliced scored significantly higher Mary Ann Boyle (P‘s 0.01) for aroma quality, color of lean, flavor of fat, juiciness and tenderness than did roasts held sliced or refrigerated and reheated. Roasts served immediately and roasts held unsliced scored significantly higher (P‘s 0.01) in flavor of lean than roasts held sliced and these in turn were significantly higher (P‘s 0.01) than similar scores for roasts refrigerated and reheated. Roasts served im— mediately and roasts held unsliced were significantly juicier (P‘g 0.01) than roasts refrigerated and reheated as indi- cated by the percentage of press fluid. o mcwusp mummou am How mmHSmCOHumHmH musumuwmfimulwaflu and: .m wusmflm mquCflE CH .mEHu mafipcmum ON 0 0m _ _ A _ _ _ _ manna» m>Huowc Icoo paw umm mommnsm 30amm .IIIII mammflu wHUmDS .-:i:- wanna» maomsfi mo Hmucmo WQUDCflE CH emfiflp CG>O Cd ON , o 66 the exterior fat and connective tissue may decrease rates of temperature rise. Funk, Aldrich and Irmiter reported (39) an exterior covering of fat increased the time neces- sary to cook fabricated ground beef cylinders to the rare stage of doneness. In another study by the same investi- gators (40), connective tissue apparently retarded rates of temperature rise during the beginning phase of the cooking period. Seimer and Hanning also found (98) connective tis- sue decreased rates of temperature rise. Also, in the present study the lower surface of the boned roasts rested on a perforated aluminum sheet roasting rack. Because metal is a better conductor of heat than air, this factor would contribute to the rates of temperature rise observed in this study. During the 30-min. standing period following removal from the oven, the average maximum temperature as recorded from the potentiometer lead positioned in the center of the muscle tissue reached 60°C., an average rise of 6°C. Heat from the surface of the meat continued to penetrate into the inner portion during the first 22 min. of the standing period. After that time, the temperature showed a slight decline. The temperature recorded from the connective tissue, exterior fat-muscle interface reached a maximum of 61°C. after the first 7 min. of standing and by the end of the 30-min. stand- ing period, it had drOpped to 59°C. 67 During holding A potentiometer lead was positioned in the center of the muscle tissue of unsliced roasts to record time- temperature relationships during the 90-min. holding period over dry heat. The mean temperature recorded during the investigation showed the average initial temperature of the meat was 55.5°C. or 4.5°C. lower than the temperature re- corded at the end of the 30-min. standing period following cooking (Fig. 4). These data suggest the meat cooled slightly during the process of weighing to determine cooking losses and preparing it for the holding period or the potentiometer lead was not placed in the same position used to record time-temperature relationships during oven cooking. During holding, the temperature rose to an average of 58°C. indicating heat transfer from the environment into the roast. For the roasts held sliced, a potentiometer lead was positioned through the surface fat to the center of the previously designated slice (Fig. 2, page 52). During the investigation, the average temperature of the meat rose from an initial temperature of 48.5°C. to an average of 59°C. (Fig. 4). At the end of the 30-min. standing period follow- ing oven cooking, the average temperature of the meat had been 59°C. Thus, during preparation for holding, the tempera- ture decreased an average of 10.5°C. However, at the end of the 90-min. holding period, the average meat temperature had increased to 59°C. or 10.5°C. 68 chHHm pmoaamcb .ummn map Hm>o .GHE om How pwoflam 0cm Umoflawc: pawn mummou How mmHSmCOHumHmH musumummsmulmaflu and: .¢ musmflm moussea ca .mEHu usepaom om ow Cd ON 0 _ _ _ _ A _ H . Itllu 1.0m '4 uroa ‘“‘r|||\| J I.om U 69 For roasts refrigerated for approximately 24 hr., time-temperature relationships were recorded from a potenti— ometer lead positioned in the center of the roast. As indi- cated in Figure 5, the average decline in temperature was from 56.5°C. to 4.5°C. The average time required for the meat to reach this temperature was 7 hr. and 48 min. The temperature decreased most rapidly during the first 2 hr. of the cooling period while the slowest rates of heat transfer were noted for the final 3 hr. of the cooling period. During cooling, the internal temperature of the meat remained in the "danger zone" or a temperature of 4.5 to 60°C. for 7 hr. and 48 min. In a review of time-temperature control for foods, Longree suggested (67) cooling times for solid foods such as meat may be largely anticipated on the basis of eXperience rather than scientific knowledge because limited data are available on heat transfer in solid foods. The results of this study support Longree's suggestion. Duringireheating During reheating, time-temperature relationships were recorded from a potentiometer lead positioned in the previous- ly designated slice (Fig. 2, page 52). The temperature of the meat increased 1°C. during slicing and preparation for reheating. .The rate of temperature rise during reheating shows a very slight initial lag followed by a continuous rapid rate of temperature rise over the average 67.2 min. required to heat the sliced meat to 60°C. (Fig. 5). Moisture 7O .mCHUHHm Hmumm pmpmmnmu Cosy pCm .HC am How HoumummHummH m CH pmoHHmCC Cams mummou How mmHCmCOHumHmH wusumumemulmEHu Cmmz. .m onsmHm mmusCHE CH .mEHu mCHummCmm mnson CH .mEHu mCHpHOC pmumummHHmmm oo 0* ON 0 T..H _ .J. _ _ . _ _ _. 71 present in the covered pan would increase rates of tempera- ture rise because the moisture would form steam as it was heated and steam conducts heat more rapidly than air. Weight Losses Data pertaining to cooking, holding, reheating and slicing losses were calculated as percentages based on the raw weight of the meat. When possible, the portion of losses attributable to drip and to evaporation were determined. Means and standard deviations were computed for weight losses, servable meat and scrap for each treatment (Table 2). Analy- ses of variance of losses, servable meat and scrap are found in Table 3. Further analysis as shown by Duncan's Multiple Range test are summarized (35) in Table 4. Percentages of cooking losses for six replications of roasts served imme- diately and held by the three methods are found in the Appendix, Table 15. Data for other losses are presented in the Appendix, Table 16. Cooking losses The procedure for oven cooking plus the 30-min. period during which the roasts were allowed to stand undisturbed at room temperature after removal from the oven was the same for all roasts. Hence, total, drip and volatile losses did differ significantly among treatments. Also. there were no significant differences in these losses among animals. Grand average total cooking losses were 12.62 per cent with 72 Eopmmum mo mwmummn .wHw>HuommmmH .Houum UCm HmEHCm .>uHHHQMQoum mo Hm>mH qu0 Mom H mCu um quoHMHCmHm ** .quEummHu How OH UCm m .N mum .mponuwa mCHUHOC woman may now UmusmEoo mUCMHHm> mo mHm%HMC¢H m¢N.>H ¢OH.mN 0mm.o mso.m NMH.¢ mH Houum woo.HH mOH.> smm.o omm.o emm.m m HmEHC< www.mH **Hmo.mHm **>N¢.>H **oom.Hm Hm¢.o m quEummHB mm Hmuoe .mduom ummz mommoq mommoq mommoq Eopmmum mUCmHHm> mHQm>Hmm mCHUHHm WCHUHOm mConoo no mo mousom HMDOB Hmuoe mmmummn .mummon mo QMHUm UCm ummE mHQm>uwm ll’ illr OHMDUm Cam: I] .mposuma mmHCu ma pawn UCC wawHMHmeEH Um>umm .mmmmOH quHCB Com mUCmHHm> mo mmm%HMC¢ .m mHQma me.~HHH.eH em.meem.md mm.enmo.ea mm.mnmm.oa meson Ho.eflmm.mm Hm.mnee.mm ea.memm.mm mm.mnmm.me pews mane>umm mo.OHee.o oe.ofimm.e em.onm.m em.enem.e mmmmoa meHoHHm mm.onem.a mm.oemm.e em.enao.e nu- mmmmoH meHeHon Hence mo.aeee.ma em.mflmm.me mm.mflme.me om.aemm.ma mmmmoH meexooo Canoe e m N a Cmummsmm UCm UmumummHummm pmoHHm UmoHHmCD HouuCoo quEumeB mo mmuom pCm .mUOCHmE mossy an CHO: UCM kHOHMHUmEEH pm>umm mummou .mmmmoH usmHmB How mCOHu8H>m© UnmpCmum pcm mCmmS .N mHQMB ummE mHnm>Hmm 73 Table 4. Duncan's Multiple Range test1 for significant dif- ferences in weight losses from roasts served imme— diately (1), held unsliced (2), held sliced (3) and refrigerated and reheated (4). Significant at Additional at 9.3 0.01 P.S 0.05 Total holding losses 3 > 2 > 4 Slicing losses 1 > 2 > 3 > 4 Servable meat 1: 2 > 3, 4 1 > 2 1Values underscored by the same line are not significantly different (35). 4.21 and 8.41 per cent attributable to drip and volatile losses, reSpectively. These results are in agreement with those reported by Funk, Aldrich and Irmiter (38) and Child and Esteros (14). Percentages of total, drip and volatile cooking losses for six replications of all treatments are presented in the Appendix, Table 15. Holding losses Analysis of variance revealed highly significant dif- ferences among treatments for total holding losses. Further analysis showed total holding losses were significantly higher (P‘g 0.01) for roasts held sliced than for roasts held un- sliced and these in turn were significantly higher (P's 0.01) than total losses incurred during refrigerated holding. Average total holding losses of 7.98, 4.01 and 1.64 per cent 74 were found for roasts held sliced and unsliced over dry heat and unsliced in the refrigerator, reSpectively. Mean values of 2.27, 7.84 and 0.74 per cent were found for roasts held unsliced and sliced over dry heat and unsliced refrigerated roasts, reSpectively, for loss due to drip. These losses differed significantly with roasts held sliced having significantly higher (P's 0.01) drip losses than roasts held unsliced which in turn were significantly higher (P g 0.01) than those of roasts held unsliced in the refrigerator. .The high drip losses of roasts held sliced were probably due to the increased surface area which would permit more juice to drain from the meat during the 90-min. holding period. Other researchers have reported increased cooking losses when roasts have been cooked in moist heat. Hood found (58) cooking losses, which were mainly drip, were greater in roasts cooked in aluminum foil wraps than cooking losses or roasts cooked by dry heat. At the refrigerator temperatures, fat would congeal rather than render from the meat and perhaps the congealed fat would prevent other drip from accumulating during the refrigerated holding. Hence, low drip losses resulted when the roasts were held in a re- frigerator. Analysis of variance revealed no significant differ- ences among treatments or animals for volatile holding losses. Roasts held sliced had the highest average volatile loss of 1.74 per cent. Unsliced roasts held over dry heat or 75 refrigerated had average volatile losses of 0.50 and 0.90 per cent, reSpectively. All pans in which roasts were held were covered with aluminum foil before the lid was placed on the pan. This procedure was followed because potentiometer leads used to record time-temperature data did not permit a tight fit of pan lids. Therefore, volatile losses were minimized during holding and similar losses resulted from the three treatments. Reheating losses Roasts which had been refrigerated for approximately 24 hr. were sliced and reheated in a 149°C. oven to an in- ternal temperature of 60°C. During the average 67.2-min. reheating period, average losses of 12.38 per cent resulted. Of that total, 11.88 per cent was due to drip and 0.49 per cent was due to evaporation. As was done for holding periods, pans of meat were covered with aluminum foil before the lid was placed on the pan. This procedure apparently minimized volatile losses during reheating. Slicing losses After slicing, the slices of meat were placed in a pan to facilitate serving or to hold or reheat. Some drip accumulated during this process. For roasts served immediate- ly and roasts held unsliced, this drip was weighed and the amount added to losses due to slicing. For roasts held un- sliced, similar losses were included in drip losses incurred 76 during holding while for unsliced refrigerated roasts, these losses were included as a part of those attributable to re- heating. Analysis of variance of slicing losses showed highly significant differences among treatments. However, slicing .losses due to animal differences were not significant. Roasts served immediately had significantly higher (P's 0.01) slicing losses than roasts held unsliced. The slicing losses from roasts held unsliced were significantly higher (P g_o.01) than those of roasts held sliced and these in turn were sig- nificantly higher (P's 0.01) than the slicing losses of roasts refrigerated and reheated. Slicing losses were lowest for roasts refrigerated and reheated with a mean loss of 0.41 per cent. Means of 4.34. 2.68 and 1.29 per Cent were found for roasts served imme- diately, roasts held unsliced and roasts held sliced, reSpectively. The low slicing losses of refrigerated roasts would be expected because the congealed fat would hold in the juices of the meat. Also, the firmness of the Chilled roasts would contribute to lower slicing losses. Accumulative losses For roasts served immediately, these losses consisted of cooking and slicing losses while total losses for roasts held unsliced and sliced included those attributable to cook- ing, holding and slicing. Total losses for roasts refrigerated 77 and reheated consisted of cooking, holding, slicing and re- heating losses. The percentages of the total losses due to drip and evaporation are defined in the same manner. Means and standard deviations were computed for accumulative losses (Table 5). Analyses of variance for the accumulative losses are shown in Table 6. Further analysis as found by the Duncan's Multiple Range test are summarized (35) in Table 7. Total losses. Analysis of variance showed highly significant differences among treatments for total losses. However, no significant differences attributable to animal were noted. Upon further analysis, roasts served immediately had signifi- cantly lower (P's 0.05) average losses than roasts held un- sliced. Roasts served immediately and roasts held unsliced had significantly lower (P's 0.01) average total losses of 16.66 and 19.20 per cent, reSpectively, than roasts held sliced with the average total losses of 22.19 per cent. These losses were significantly lower (P's 0.01) than the 27.19 per cent average total losses of the roasts refrigerated and reheated. Total drip losses. Analysis of variance revealed significant differences (P‘g 0.01) in total drip losses due to treatment but none among animals. Roasts served immediately and roasts held unsliced had significantly lower (Pig 0.01) average total drip losses of 8.33 and 8.99 per cent, reSpectively, than 78 Table 5. Means and standard deviations for accumulative losses from roasts served immediately and held by three methods. Treatment Control Sliced Unsliced Refrigerated and Reheated Losses 1 2 3 4 Total 16.66:0.97 19.2011.54 22.19:2.01 27.19il.86 Drip 8.33iO.94 8.99:1.01 13.2311.11 17.43i1.44 Volatile 8.34:1.34 10.2111.09 8.96:1.30 9.76:1.13 Table 6. Analyses of variance for accumulative losses from roasts served immediately and held by three methods. Degrees Mean Sgpare Source of of Total Total Drip Total Volatile Variance Freedom Losses Losses Losses Total 23 Treatment .3 122.878** 107.167** 4.150 Animal 5 1.703 0.843 1.857 Error 15 3.039 1.454 1.357 *- 9(- Significantly different at the 1 per cent level of prob- ability. Table 7. Duncan's Multiple Range test1 for significant dif- ferences in accumulative losses for roasts served immediately (1), held unsliced (2), held sliced (3) and refrigerated and reheated (4). —— —- Losses Significant at P $_0.01 Additional at 9.3 0.05 Total 1, 2 < 3 < 4 1 < 2 Drip 1, 2 < 3 < 4 Volatile Not significant lValues underscored by the same line are not significantly different (35). 79 similar losses from roasts held sliced with an average total drip loss of 13.23 per cent. These losses were significantly lower (9.3 0.01) than the 17.34 per cent average drip losses incurred by roasts refrigerated and reheated. -Explanations for differences in drip losses have been discussed. Total volatile losses. Mean percentages for total volatile losses of 8.34, 10.21, 8.96 and 9.76 per cent were found for roasts served immediately, roasts held unsliced and sliced and roasts refrigerated and reheated, reSpectively. Analysis of variance revealed no significant differences attributable to treatment or animals. Servable Meat and Scrap The amount of meat available for serving was defined as the weight of all whole slices of meat obtained from each roast. Partial slices were defined as scrap. Percentages of servable meat and scrap, based on the raw weight of the sample, are presented in the Appendix, Table 17. The refrigerated and reheated roasts yielded 58.86 per cent servable meat which was the lowest amount for the four treatments. Roasts held sliced and unsliced yielded similar percentages of 65.14 and 68.23, reSpectively. Serv- ing the roasts immediately resulted in 76.29 per cent serv- able meat. These differences were highly significant when analyzed for variance. However, no significant differences attributable to animal were found. 80 Further analysis of the data showed that roasts served immediately and roasts held unsliced had significantly higher (P‘s 0.01) amounts of servable meat than roasts held sliced and roasts refrigerated and reheated. Roasts served immedi- ately had a significantly higher (P.g 0.05) amount of servable meat than roasts held unsliced. A highly significant negative correlation coefficient (r = -0.84) was found between total losses and servable meat indicating that as total losses in- creased the amount of servable meat decreased. Analysis of variance revealed no significant differ- ences due to treatment or to animal for scrap losses. Averages of 10.23, 14.06, 12.67 and 14.11 per cent were ob- tained for roasts served immediately, roasts held unsliced and sliced and roasts refrigerated and reheated. The mean number of slices obtained from the roasts for each treatment were approximately the same. Roasts served immediately, roasts held unsliced and sliced and roasts re- frigerated and reheated yielded 20, 19, 21 and 20 slices, reSpectively. However, as already stated, the weight of the slices differed significantly among the four treatments. These results would greatly influence the cost per serving. In order to obtain a uniform 3 oz. portion, slices from roasts held sliced or reheated and refrigerated would have to be thicker than slices from roasts served immediately or held unsliced. For example, roasts served immediately and roasts refrigerated and reheated each yielded an average of 20 slices 81 but the roasts served immediately had 17.43 per cent more servable meat. Thus, the cost of a 3 oz. serving of meat would be higher for roasts refrigerated and reheated than roasts served immediately. Subjective Evaluation The quality characteristics of aroma, color of lean, flavor of lean, flavor of fat, juiciness and tenderness were evaluated for each of the four treatments by a panel of seven judges. The intensity of aroma, flavor of lean, and flavor of fat were also evaluated. A 7-point scale was used with a score of one indicating unacceptable quality and a score of seven, excellent quality. Descriptive terms for each score were employed to aid the judges in evaluating the samples. All judges' scores for each characteristic for each replication were averaged to indicate the quality of the roast. These scores appear in the Appendix, Table 18. Grand means and standard deviations were computed from the averages for each quality characteristic for each treatment (Table 8). Analyses of variance of the quality character- istics of the different treatments are summarized in Table 9. Further differences as noted by Duncan's Multiple Range test (35) are shown in Table 10. Evaluations of intensity of aroma, flavor of lean and flavor of fat were considered as descriptions of the quality characteristics. 82 .huHHHanonm mo Hw>mH quU Hmm H ms» um quoHMHCmHm ** HOH.O smH.o HHN.O mmH.o mmm.o mHH.o mH Houum **m«m.o mmo.o Hum.o mmm.o mum.o mHN.o m HmEHCd **dmm.H **NHm.m **m>m.m **mmm.m **dmm.m **mHm.H m prEummuB mm Hmuoe mmmCumpCmB mmmCHUHsh umm Cmmq Cmma mfioud Eopmmsm wUCMHHm> mo uo>mHm mo uo>mHm mo HOHOU HO HO mUHDom mwmummn mumsmw Cams .mponums mmunu an pHmC pCm mHCHMHCmEEH pm>umm mummou mo COHumsHm>m w>HuowmQDm mo CUCMHHM> mo mommHmcd .m GHQMB n.0HH.¢ m.OHH.¢ «.0Ho.m m.OHo.m mmmCHmpCmB m.oH¢.m m.OHo.¢ n.0HH.m $.0Hw.m mmmCHUHDh 5.0Hm.m m.OHm.m $.08m.¢ N.owo.m umm mo uo>mHm $.0Hm.m m.owm.¢ «.OHs.m n.0Hm.m CmmH mo Ho>mHm n.0Hm.m H.HHm.¢ ¢.oflm.m n.08m.m CmmH mo HOHOU m.OHm.¢ $.0Hm.¢ m.OHm.m $.OH¢.m mfiond e m m H mUHumHumpomumCo meHHmmd Umummnmm UCM pmumnmeHmmm UmUHHm pwUHHmCD HouuCoo posses merHom .mponuma mmunu wn 6H8: pCm hHmHMHUmEEH Um>nmm mummou mo mUHumHHmuUMHMCU huHHmsU mo mCoHumsHm>m w>Huowmnsm How mCOHHMH>wU pumpCmum UCm mmeE owuw .m magma 83 Table 10. Duncan's Multiple Range test1 for quality character- istics of roasts served immediately (1), held un- sliced (2), held sliced (3) and refrigerated and reheated (4). Quality Significant at Additional at Characteristics P,g 0.01 P‘s 0.05 Aroma 1, 2 > 3, 4 Color of lean 1, 2 > 3, 4 Flavor of lean 1, 2 > 3 > 4 Flavor of fat 1, 2 > 3, 4 Juiciness 1, 2 > 3, 4 3 > 4 Tenderness 1, 2 > 3, 4 1Values underscored by the same line are not significantly dif- ferent (35). Arena Grand mean scores for aroma quality were 5.4 and 5.5 for the roasts served immediately and roasts held unsliced, reSpectively, indicating good to very good quality. Opposite results were noted by Funk, Aldrich and Irmiter who found (38) that beef loin roasts held unsliced for 6 and 18 hr. had more aroma than conventionally cooked roasts. However, in their study, the maximum internal temperature of the meat was higher than that of this study. .Roasts held sliced and roasts re- frigerated and reheated had the same grand mean score of 4.5 indicating an aroma of medium to good quality. -Analysis of variance of the aroma scores revealed high- ly significant differences attributable to treatment. Further 84 analysis indicated roasts could be held unsliced without sig- nificantly affecting the aroma. Therefore, aroma scores for roasts served immediately or held unsliced were signifi- cantly higher (P‘s 0.01) than those for roasts sliced before holding or reheating. These data suggest aroma components were volatilized from the increased surface area of the sliced meat during the holding or reheating. No significant differ— ences attributable to animal were found. Aroma intensity grand mean scores were 4.5, 4.7, 4.1 and 4.5 for roasts served immediately, roasts held unsliced, roasts held sliced and roasts refrigerated and reheated, reSpectively. These values show that aroma was perceptible to slightly pronounced in intensity. Eelsaefleeri The roasts served immediately and the roasts held unsliced received grand average scores of 6.5 and 6.2, reSpectively, for color of lean while lower grand average scores of 4.8 and 3.9 were given roasts held sliced and roasts refrigerated and reheated, reSpectively. Other investi- gators (38) found conventionally cooked roasts and roasts held unsliced were significantly different in color. The higher scores indicated the meat was light brown shading to pink in the center of the slice. The scores of 4.8 and 3.9 indicated a medium brown color and a gray to light brown color, reSpec- tively. Since the meat was sliced in both treatments receiving the lowest scores, more surface area was eXposed to heat which 85 would result in color changes in the meat. Judges described most of the samples held by these two treatments as unevenly colored, blotchy, or mottled in appearance. This appearance was probably the result of the overlapping arrangement of the slices in which the tOp of the slices were more exposed to air and heat. Lyon reported (73) similar results in a study of refrigerated and reheated beef roasts. Analysis of variance revealed a highly significant difference for color of lean attributable to treatment. The differences among animals were not significant. Further analysis of the data showed the roasts served immediately and the roasts held unsliced scored significantly higher (P‘s 0.01) than roasts held sliced and the roasts refriger— ated and reheated. Flavor pf 1233 Grand mean scores for the quality of flavor of lean were 5.8 and 5.7 for the roasts served immediately and roasts held unsliced, reSpectively, indicating a good to very good flavor. The roasts held sliced received a grand average score of 4.5 indicating a medium to good flavor while the refrigerated and reheated roasts had a lower score of 3.9 in- dicating poor to medium quality in flavor of lean. _A few 0f the judges described the flavor of the roasts held sliced as warmed over or almost flavorless. Comments on the flavor of the refrigerated and reheated roasts indicated a strong flavor with an aftertaste. 86 Analysis of variance computed for flavor of lean scores revealed highly significant differences attributable to treatment but none among animals. Further analysis showed the roasts served immediately and the roasts held unsliced scored significantly higher (P.S 0.01) than the roasts held sliced or the roasts refrigerated and reheated. Also, highly significant differences between roasts held sliced and roasts refrigerated and reheated were found. The grand mean intensity score for flavor of lean of 5.9 was highest for roasts served immediately while roasts refrigerated and reheated received the lowest grand mean score of 4.7. The roasts held unsliced and sliced received grand mean scores of 5.8 and 5.1, reSpectively. The correlation coefficient (r s 0.92) obtained between quality of flavor of lean and color of lean scores was highly significant as was the correlation coefficient (r = 0.83) for the quality of flavor of lean and aroma scores. Flavor,g£,£ap Analysis of variance revealed highly significant dif- ferences attributable to treatment for scores of the flavor of fat. However, no significant differences were found among animals. Upon further analysis, fat from the roasts served immediately and from the roasts held unsliced was found to be significantly better (P,§ 0.01) in flavor than the fat from roasts held sliced and roasts refrigerated and reheated. 87 Grand mean scores for quality of the flavor of fat were 5.0, 4.8, 3.9 and 3.6 for roasts served immediately, roasts held unsliced, roasts held sliced and roasts refriger— ated and reheated. One judge commented that the flavor of fat for the roasts held unsliced was rancid. Comments of the judges for flavor of fat of roasts held sliced and roasts refrigerated and reheated indicated the fat had a rancid or oxidized flavor. The grand mean score of 5.5 for intensity of fat flavor for roasts served immediately indicated the good quality flavor was slightly to moderately pronounced. When roasts were held unsliced, the grand mean intensity score was 5.1 showing a slightly pronounced medium to good quality fat flavor. The poor to medium flavor of fat scores for roasts held sliced and for roasts refrigerated and reheated were per- ceptible to slightly pronounced as indicated by the grand mean intensity scores of 4.9 and 5.1, reSpectively. A highly significant correlation coefficient (r = 0.78) was obtained between the quality of the flavor of fat and aroma scores indicating roasts with good aroma also had fat with good flavor. The correlation coefficient (r = 0.82) obtained between flavor of fat and flavor of lean was also highly significant. Juiciness Grand mean scores for juiciness were 5.4 and 5.1 for roasts served immediately and roasts held unsliced indicating 88 that the meat was juicy to very juicy. A grand mean score of 4.0 for the roasts held sliced indicated the meat was neither juicy nor dry while the score of 3.4 for roasts re- frigerated and reheated indicated the judges rated the sample as slightly dry. -Differences in juiciness scores due to treatments were highly significant. No significant differences were found among animals. Further analysis of the data showed the juici- ness scores of roasts served immediately and roasts held un- sliced were significantly higher (9.3 0.01) than scores from roasts held sliced and roasts refrigerated and reheated. Also, roasts held sliced were significantly juicier (P,g 0.05) than roasts refrigerated and reheated. Reheating the roasts and holding roasts unsliced was similar to cooking by moist heat since moisture was formed and evaporation kept to mini- mum by the foil covering the pan. Researchers (32, 58) have shown that the moist heat method results in less juicy meat. A highly significant correlation coefficient (r = 0.90) was found between the quality of flavor of lean and juiciness indicating that flavor components are located in the juice of the meat. This observation is in agreement with that of Kramlich and Pearson (67) who suggested flavor components are located primarily in the juice. Tenderness The basis for tenderness scores was the number of chews required to masticate a 1-in. circle of meat. Grand mean 89 scores for roasts served immediately and roasts held unsliced were both 5.0 indicating moderately tender meat. Judges rated roasts held sliced and roasts refrigerated and reheated slightly tough with a grand mean score of 4.1 for both methods. Some of the judges commented that the roasts held unsliced and roasts refrigerated and reheated were slightly stringy or mealy. Chew counts were not always accurate as indicated by panelists' remarks of connective tissue present in the precut meat circles. Highly significant differences were found in tender- ness scores among treatments and among animals. Further analy- sis revealed that roasts served immediately and roasts held unsliced were significantly more tender (P,g 0.01) than roasts held sliced and roasts refrigerated and reheated. No signifi- cant differences were found between tenderness scores of roasts served immediately and roasts held unsliced. Also, tenderness scores from roasts held sliced did not differ significantly from the tenderness scores of roasts refrigerated and reheated. The results of this study do not agree with the suggestion of Bramblett g; 31, (9) that increased cooking or holding between temperatures cf 57 and 60°C. was related to an increase in tenderness. Roasts from animals coded 1 and 2 were signifi— cantly different from each other in tenderness and from roasts from animals coded 3, 4. 5 and 6. Other researchers have reported (53,57) significant differences in tenderness among animals. 90 A highly significant correlation coefficient (r = 0.76) was obtained between tenderness and juiciness scores. A sum- mary of significant correlation coefficients between quality characteristics is found in Table 11. Table 11. Summary of significant correlation coefficients between subjective evaluation of quality character- istics of roasts served immediately and held by three methods. Correlation Relationship Coefficient Quality of flavor of lean/Aroma quality 0.83** Quality of flavor of lean/Color of the lean 0.92** Quality of flavor of fat/Aroma quality 0.78** Quality of flavor of lean/Quality of flavor of fat 0.82** Quality of flavor of lean/Juiciness 0.90** Tenderness/Juiciness 0.76** *- * Significant at the 1 per cent level of probability. Evaluation temperature Temperature evaluation of each sample was made by the taste panelists using a 3-point scale with a score of 1 indi- cating Hot; 2, Warm; and 3, Cold. Roasts served immediately and roasts held unsliced received a grand mean score of 1.9 indicating the meat to be warm more than hot. Grand mean scores for roasts held sliced and roasts refrigerated and re- heated were 1.8 and 1.6, reSpectively. 91 A potentiometer lead was positioned in the center of the slice while in the Dri-Heat assembly to record the serv- ing temperature of the meat. The average temperature recorded was 50°C. Objective Measurements Objective measurements of tenderness and juiciness were determined. Tenderness was measured with the Kramer shear- press and juiciness, by the Carver press. Values for the objective measurements for each holding method are summarized in the Appendix, Table 19. -Analyses of variance computed for the objective measurements are found in Table 12. Table 12. Analyses of variance of objective measurements of roasts served immediately and held by three methods. Mean Sguare Degrees Kramer shearfipress Source of of Area-under- Variance Freedom Lb. force/gm. the-curve Carver Press Total 23 Treatment 3 7.528 0.312 65.262** Animal 5 14.174 0.564 12.169 Error 15 6.151 0.412 7.571 ** Significant at the 1 per cent level of probability. Tenderness Roasts Served immediately had the lowest mean shear: press values, expressed as lb. force/gm., of 16.37, while the IO he 92 roasts held unsliced and roasts refrigerated and reheated had similar shear—press values of 17.18 and 17.23, reSpec- tively. The roasts held sliced required the largest number of lb. force/gm., 19.03, to shear the sample. The area—under-the- curve values were also determined. Analysis of variance revealed no significant differences attributable to treatment or to animal for shear-press values expressed as maximum force or area-under-the-curve. A significant negative corre- lation coefficient (r = -0.41) was obtained between tenderness scores and shear-press values expressed as maximum force indi- cating that as the tenderness score increased less force was required to shear the meat. Other investigators (6,10,11,38, 92,98) found significant correlation coefficients between Kramer shear-press values and tenderness scores. Juiciness The lowest percentage of press fluid yield was 51.24 for the roasts refrigerated and reheated. The roasts served immediately, roasts held unsliced and sliced had press fluid percentages of 58.55, 57.45 and 54.32, reSpectively. Differ- ences, attributable to treatment, were highly significant. Further analysis showed roasts served immediately and roasts held unsliced were significantly juicier (P,S 0.01) than roasts refrigerated and reheated. Significant differences (P‘s 0.05) were also noted between roasts served immediately and roasts held sliced. No significant differences were noted among animals. Grand mean juiciness scores and mean 93 percentages of press fluid are presented in Table 13. As the percentage of press fluid decreased, the juiciness scores decreased. This relationship would be expected since the held roasts were subjected to heat for a longer period of time and they had the lower juiciness scores. Also, the roasts that were sliced before holding or reheating had more surface area exposed from which the juice could escape. A highly significant correlation (r = 0.67) was obtained be- tween press fluid values and juiciness scores. Other investi- gators (71,100) have also reported significant correlations between press fluid values and juiciness scores. Table 13. Means and standard deviations for objective measurements of quality characteristics of roasts served immediately and held by three methods. Kramer shearfipress Treatment Area-under- Carver Press Lb. force/gm. the-curve Control 16.3712.87 3.38:0.88 58.55i1.92 Unsliced 17.1814.13 2.91:0.60 57.45i2.71 Sliced 19.02i2.13 3.39:0.53 54.32i2.80 Refrigerated 17.23i1.69 3.19:0.61 51.2414.01 and Reheated 94 Correlation Coefficients between Objective Measurements and Subjective Evaluations Losses resulting from the four treatments applied to the loin cuts of beef were correlated with subjective evalu- ations and objective measurements of quality characteristics. The highly significantly negative correlation coefficient (r = -0.65) between aroma quality and total losses suggest that components of the meat reSponsible for high quality aroma decreased as the total losses increased. Total losses were correlated with flavor of lean (r = -0.90) and flavor of fat (r = -0.70) scores. The highly significant negative corre- lation coefficients show that flavor of lean and fat decreased in quality as the total losses increased. Juiciness scores and total losses had a highly signifi— cant negative correlation coefficient (r = -0.92). The nega- tive correlation coefficient (r = -0.94) between juiciness scores and drip losses was also highly significant, indicating that as losses due to drip increased, the meat decreased in juiciness. This relationship is also apparent in the highly significant negative correlation coefficients (r = -0.72 and r = -0.76) found between total losses/percentages of press fluid and drip losses/percentages of press fluid. The negative correlation coefficients (r = -0.66 and r = -0.65) between total losses/tenderness scores and drip losses/tenderness scores suggest the meat samples became less tender as the losses due to treatment were increased. 95 However, correlation coefficients between total and drip losses and objective measurements were not significant. Significant correlations between losses and subjective evalu- ation and objective measurements are summarized in Table 14. Table 14. .Summary of the significant correlation coefficients between weight losses and subjective evaluations and objective measurements of roasts served and held by three methods. 22222222222 Total losses/Aroma quality -0.65** Total losses/Flavor of the lean -0.90** Total losses/Flavor of the fat -0.70** Total losses/Juiciness -0.92** Total losses/Percentage of press fluid -0.72** Total losses/Tenderness -0.66** Drip losses/Huiciness -0.94** Drip losses/Percentage of press fluid -0.76** Drip losses/Tenderness -0.65** ** Significant at the 1 per cent level of probability. Chemical Analyses The pH values were determined for all raw and cooked meat samples. The thiamine content was determined for four of the six animals used in this study. 25. The mean pH value for all raw meat was 5.9. Roasts served immediately and roasts refrigerated and reheated had 96 mean values of 5.9 while roasts held unsliced and sliced had mean pH values of 5.8. A comparative analysis of the pH of raw and cooked samples revealed the pH of raw meat and that of cooked meat served immediately differed significantly (P,g 0.05). The pH values for raw and cooked samples for six replications of each treatment are found in the Appendix, Table 20. Thiamine analypis Average thiamine content for raw and cooked meat samples was eXpressed on an as-determined basis. The mean amount of thiamine for the raw roasts was 0.89 mcg. per gram. This value is almost equal to 0.9 mcg. per gram reported by .Watt and Merrill (112) for separable lean of the raw beef loin. For cooked samples, the mean thiamine content was 0.78i0.007, 0.78:0.007, 0.85i0.048 and 0.81:0.017 mcg. per gram for roasts served immediately, roasts held unsliced and sliced and roasts refrigerated and reheated, reSpectively. Watt and Merrill found (112) that broiled separable beef loin 'had 0.8 mcg. of thiamine per gram. Thiamine content for the four replications of each treatment are presented in the Appendix, Table 21. All roasts showed a decrease in thiamine content after cooking and holding. It would be expected that roasts held sliced and roasts refrigerated and reheated would have a lower thiamine content than roasts held unsliced or those 97 served immediately. Perhaps the higher thiamine values of the roasts held sliced or reheated could be explained by the higher total losses for these roasts. The thiamine may be more concentrated in the meat due to loss of juice from the meat. Evaluation of Holding Methods In evaluating the three holding methods used in this study, the roasts held unsliced were more acceptable than roasts held sliced or roasts refrigerated and reheated. Subjective evaluation and objective measurements revealed that unsliced roasts were similar to the roasts served imme— diately in all factors evaluated. The unsliced roasts re- ceived the highest subjective rating of the roasts held by the three methods. The amount of servable meat was also the greatest for the unsliced roasts and the total losses were the lowest. Therefore, according to the results of this. study, it is recommended, that when feasible in an institu- tional setting, roasts be held unsliced. When considering all four treatments, the roast served immediately was judged the most acceptable and was rated the highest in subjective evaluation. Objective measurements proved it to be the most tender and juicy of the four methods. Holding, therefore, should be eliminated as much as possible in a food service Operation in order to insure the highest quality of cooked meat. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS The primary objective of this study was to compare selected times and temperatures of holding and/or reheating on the palatability characteristics, weight losses and thiamine content of U. S. Choice grade beef loins. Heat transfer during cooking and holding were also examined. Six pairs of boneless strip loin cuts of beef were halved to obtain the 24 roasts used for the study. After codes were arbitrarily assigned so three of the four cuts from each animal were held by a different method with the fourth cut used as a control, the individual cuts of meat were wrapped, frozen and stored at -23°C. until defrosted for cooking and subsequent evaluation. Prior to cooking, potentiometer leads were positioned horizontally at three points within each roast to record time-temperature relationships: at the fat, connective tissue—muscle interface; midway between the surface fat and center of the muscle and at the center of the muscle. All roasts were cooked in a 149°C. oven to an internal temperature of 54°C. as recorded by the potentiometer lead positioned in the center of the muscle. After removal from the oven, all roasts were allowed to stand undisturbed at room temperature for 30 min. 98 \i '1 ll‘ll. I 99 The following treatments were then applied. Roasts serving as the control were sliced and served immediately. For the first holding method, unsliced roasts were held 90 min. over dry heat. Roasts held by the second method were sliced and held in the same manner as method one. For the third method, the roasts were refrigerated for approximately 24 hr. and then sliced and reheated to an internal temperature of 60°C. Time-temperature relationships were continuously recorded during holding or reheating. Percentages of oven cooking, holding, reheating, and slicing losses were obtained for the apprOpriate treatments. When possible, losses due to drip and evaporation were determined. Percentages of servable meat and scrap were also obtained. A seven-member taste panel scored all samples for aroma, color of lean, flavor of lean, flavor of fat, juici- ness and tenderness. Measurements of press fluid and tender- ness using a Kramer shear-press were determined. The pH and thiamine content of raw and cooked samples were determined. The data were analyzed for variance. ApprOpriate combina- tions of the data were correlated to determine significant relationships. An average of 93 min. was required to cook the meat to 54°C. Time-temperature relationships recorded during oven cooking indicated heat penetrated to the center of the muscle tissue at a more rapid rate from the bottom than from 100 the top of the roasts. During the 30-min. period following removal from the oven, the average maximum temperature rose to 60°C. All roasts cooled slightly during preparation for further treatment. During the 90—min. holding period of the unsliced roasts, the temperature rose from an initial tempera- ture of 55.5°C. to an average of 58°C. Roasts held sliced rose to an average temperature of 59°C. from an initial temperature of 48.5°C. For roasts refrigerated for 24 hr., the average decline in temperature was from 56.5°C. to 4.5°C. which required an average time of 7 hr. and 48 min. During reheating, the rate of temperature rise showed a very slight initial lag followed by a continuous rapid rate of tempera- ture rise over the average 67.2 min. required to heat the sliced meat to 60°C. Total, drip and volatile cooking losses did not differ significantly among treatments or animals. Total and drip holding losses were significantly higher (P‘s 0.01) for roasts held sliced than for roasts held unsliced which in turn were significantly higher (Pig 0.01) than similar losses in- curred during refrigerated holding. Volatile holding losses attributable to treatment were not significant. rDrip ac— counted for most of the losses incurred during reheating. .Accumulative total losses were significantly lower (P.S 0.05) for roasts served immediately than similar losses for roasts held unsliced. The accumulative total losses from 101 roasts served immediately and roasts held unsliced were sig- nificantly lower (P‘s 0.01) than those from roasts held sliced which in turn were significantly lower (P‘s 0.01) than similar losses from roasts refrigerated and reheated. Although the weight of servable meat decreased in order for roasts served immediately, roasts held unsliced, roasts held sliced and roasts refrigerated and reheated, the mean number of slices was approximately the same for all roasts. No significant differences due to treatment or animal were found for scrap loss. Analyses of subjective evaluations showed roasts served immediately or held unsliced scored significantly higher (P,g 0.01) for aroma quality, color of lean, flavor of fat and juiciness than did roasts held sliced or refrigerated and reheated. Roasts served immediately and roasts held unsliced scored significantly higher (P 30.01) in flavor of lean than roasts held sliced and these in turn were significantly higher (P‘s 0.01) than similar scores for roasts refrigerated and reheated. Significant differences (P g 0.01) attributable to treatment and animals were found in tenderness scores. Ranked in order of decreasing tenderness were roasts held unsliced, roasts served immediately, roasts held sliced and roasts refrigerated and reheated. Roasts served immediately and roasts held unsliced were significantly juicier (P‘s 0.01) than roasts refriger- ated and reheated as indicated by the percentage of press fluid. 102 Significant differences were also noted between roasts held sliced and roasts served immediately. .No significant differ- ences attributable to treatment or animal were found for Kramer shear-press values eXpressed as maximum force and area-under-the-curve. The pH of the raw meat was not significantly different among animals but the pH of the Cooked samples varied sig- nificantly (Pig 0.05) among treatments. The pH of roasts served immediately decreased during oven cooking. Ranked in order of decreasing thiamine, expressed on an as-determined basis, were the roasts held sliced and roasts refrigerated and reheated followed by roasts served immediately and roasts held unsliced with the same micrograms per gram of thiamine. Highly significant (P‘s 0.01) positive correlation coefficients were found for quality of flavor of lean/aroma quality scores, quality of flavor of lean/color of lean scores, quality of flavor of lean/juiciness scores and tender- ness/juiciness scores. Highly significant (P.S 0.01) negative correlation coefficients were found for total losses/flavor of lean scores, total losses/flavor of fat scores, total losses/juiciness scores and total losses/tenderness scores. From the results of this investigation, the following conclusions were made: 1. To insure the highest quality of cooked meat, roasts should be served immediately, 103 If roasts must be held in an institutional setting, they should be held unsliced to provide the most acceptable product, and . Because of poor flavor of the lean and fat as well as high total losses, the method of holding roasts in the refrigerator and then reheating them for service should be avoided. 10. 11. LITERATURE CITED . Aldrich, P. J., and Lowe, 3.: Comparison of grades of beef rounds. J. Am. Dietet. A. 30:39, 1954. .Alexander, L. M.: Shrinkage of roast beef in relation to the content and cooking temperature. J. Home Econ. 22:915, 1930. . Alexander, L. M. and Clark, N. G.: .Shrinkage and cooking time of rib roasts and beef of different grades as influ— enced by the style of cutting and method of roasting. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bull. 676, 1939. Alexander, L. M., and Clark, N. G.: Shrinkage and heat penetration during roasting of lamb and mutton as influ- enced by carcass grade, ripening periods and cooking methods. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bull. 440, 1934. Aughey, E., and Daniel, E. P.: Effect of cooking upon the thiamine content of foods. J. Nutr. 19:285, 1940. Bailey, M. E., Hedrick, H. B., Parrish, F. C., and Naumann, H. P.: L. E. E. Kramer shear force as a tenderness measure of beef steak. Food Tech. 16:99, 1962. . Blaker, G. G., Newcomer, J. L., and Stafford, W. D.: Conventional roasting vs. high-temperature foil cookery. J. Am. Dietet. A. 35:1255, 1959. Blaker, G. G., and Ramsey, E.:1 Holdingptemperatures and food quality. J. Am. Dietet. A. 38:450, 1961. Bramblett, V. D., Hostetler, R. L., Vail, G. E., and Draudt, N. H.: Qualities of beef as affected by cooking at very low temperatures for long periods of time. Food Tech. 13:707, 1959. Bramblett, V. D. and Vail, G. E.: Further studies of the qualities of beef as affected by cooking at very low temperatures for long periods. Food Tech. 18:123, 1964. Burrill, L. M., Diethardt, D., and Saffle, R. L.: Two mechanical devices compared with taste panel evaluations for measuring tenderness. Food Tech. 16:145. 1962. 104 12. 13. 14. 15. 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 105 Clark, R. K., and Van Duune, F. 0.: Cooking losses, tenderness, palatability and thiamine and riboflavin content of beef as affected by roasting, pressure sauce— pan cooking and broiling. Food Res. 14:221. 1949. Child, A. M., and Baldelli, M.: Press fluid from heated beef muscle. J. Agric. Res. 48:1127, 1934. Child, A. M., and Esteros, G.: A study of juiciness and flavor of standing and rolled rib roasts. J. of Home Econ. .2:182, 1937. Child, A. M., and Fogarty, J. A.: Effect of interior temperature of beef muscle upon the press fluid and cook- ing losses. J. Agric. Res. 51:655. 1935. Child, A. M., and Paul, P.: Effect of thawing and cook— ing frozen pork and beef. Minn. Agric. EXper. Sta. Bull. No. 125, 1937. Cline, J. A., and Foster, R.: The effect of oven tempera- ture on beef roasts. Mo. Agric. Exper. Sta. Bull. No. 328, 1933. Cline, J. A., Loughead, M. E., and Schwartz, B. C.: The effect of two roasting temperatures on palatability and cooking losses of roasts. Mo. Agric. Exper. Sta. Bull. No. 310. 1932. Cline, J. A., Trowbridge, E. A., Foster, M. T., and Fry, H. E.: How certain methods of cooking affect the quality and palatability of beef. Mo. Agric. Exper. Sta. Bull. No. 293, 1930. Committee on Preparation Factors of the Cooperative Meat Investigations: Meat and Meat Cookery. Chicago: National Live Stock and Meat Board, 1942. Cover, 8.: Comparative cooking time and tenderness of meat cooked in water and in an oven of the same tempera- ture. (Abstract) J. Home Econ. 33:596. 1941. Cover, 8.: Effect of extremely low rates of heat pene— tration on tendering of beef. Food Res. 8:388, 1953. Cover, 8.: Effect of metal skewers on cooking time and tenderness of beef. Food Res. 6:233, 1941. Cover, 8.: The effect of temperature and time of cooking on the tenderness of roasts. Texas Agric. Exper. Sta. Bull. No. 542. 1937. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32. 33. 34. 35. 36. 106 Cover, S. E., Dilsaver, M., Hays, R. M., and Smith,‘W¢ H.: Retention of B-vitamins after large scale cooking of meat. II. -Roasting by two methods. J. Am. Dietet. A. 25:949. 1949. Cover, 8., and Hostetler, R. L.: An examination of some theories about beef tenderness by using new methods. Texas Agric. EXper. Sta. Bull. No. 947, 1960. Cover, 8., McLaren, A. M., and Pearson, P. B.: Retention of the B-vitamins in rare and well-done beef. J. Nutr. 27:363.~1944. Cover, 8., Ritchey, S. J., and Hostetler, R. L.: Tender- ness of beef. II. Juiciness and softness components of tenderness. J. Food Sci. 27:476. 1962. Cover, 3., and Shrode. M. C.: The effectcof moist and dry heat cooking on palatability scores and shear force values of beef from animals of different levels of flesh- ing. J. Home Econ. 47:681. 1955. Cover, 8., and Smith, W. H., Jr.: Effects of moist and dry heat cooking on vitamin retention in meat from beef animals of different levels of fleshing. Food Res. 21: 209, 1956. Crocker, E. C.: Flavor of meat. Food Res. 13:179, -1948. Day, J..C.: Longissimus dorsi of three grades of beef: comparison of cooking weight losses, palatability and edible portion. Master's Thesis, Michigan State Uni- versity,-1953. Dodge, J. W., and Stadelman, W. J.: Post-mortem aging of poultry meat and its effect on the tenderness of the breast muscle. Food Tech. 13:81, 1961. Doty, D..M.: Thermal processing. In Science of Meat and Meat Products. San Francisco and London: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1960. Duncan, D. B.: Multiple range tests for correlated and heteroscidastic means. Biometrics. 13:164. 1957. Farrar, K. T. H.: The thermal destruction of vitamin-B in food. IV. Thermal losses in meats. Mrak. E. M., and Stewart, G. F., ed.: Advances in Food Research. N. Y.: Academic Press, Inc., 1955. 37. 38. 39. 40. 41. 42. 43. 44. 45. 46. 47. 107 Fenton, F., Flight, I. T., Robson, D. S., Beamer, K. C., and How, J. 8.: Study of three cuts of lower and higher grade beef, unfrozen and frozen, using two methods of thawing and two methods of braising. Cornell Univ. Agric. ExPer. Sta. Memoir 341, 1956. Funk, K., Aldrich, P. J., and Irmiter, T. F.: Delayed service cookery of loin cuts of beef. -J. Am. Dietet. A. 48:210..1966. Funk, K., Aldrich, P. J., and Irmiter, T. F.: Rate of temperature rise, physical and chemical prOperties of ground beef cylinders fabricated from selected muscles of the round. III. Effect of surface fat. Food Tech. In press. Funk, K., Aldrich, P. J., and Irmiter, T. F.: Rate of temperature rise, physical and chemical prOperties of ground beef cylinders fabricated from selected muscles of the round. IV. .Effect of surface conneCtive tissue. Food Tech. In press. Funk, K., Zabik, M. E., and Downs, D. M.: Comparison of shear press measurements and sensory evaluation of angel cakes. J. Food Sci. 30:729, 1965. Gaddis, A. M., Hankins, O. G., and Hines, R. L.: Relationships between the amount and composition of press fluid, palatability and other factors of meat. Food Tech. 4:498. 1950. Gaines, M. K., Perry, A. K., and Van Duyne, F. 0.: Preparing tOp round beef roasts. J. Am. Dietet. A. 48:204. 1966. . Gasson, F. M.: Effect of thermotainer holding and glutmate on weight losses, brownness and flavor of cooked meat loaves. Master's Thesis, Ohio State University, 1951. Ginger, B., and Weir, C. E.: Variations in tenderness within three muscles of beef round. Food Res. 23: 662. 1958. Grindley, H. S., McCormack, H., and Porter. H. C.: Experiments on losses in cooking meat. U.S.D.A. Offic. Exper..Sta. Bull. No. 102, 1901. Grindley, H. S., and Mojonnier, T.: EXperiments on losses in cooking meat. U.S.D.A. Offic. Exper..Sta. Bull. No. 141.71904. 48. 49. 50. 51. 52. 53. 54. 55. 56. 57. 58. 59. 60. 108 Griswold, R. M.: The effect of different methods of cooking beef round of commercial and prime grades. I. Palatability and shear values. Food Res. 20:160. 1955. Griswold, R.: The effect of different methods of cooking beef round of commercial and prime grade. II. Collagen, fat and nitrogen content. Food Res. 20:171, 1955. Griswold, R. M., and Wharton, M. A.: Effect of storage conditions on palatability of beef. Food Res. 6:517, 1941. Hanson, H. L., Stewart, G. F., and Lowe, B.: Palatability and histological chagges oscurring in New York dressed broilers held at 1.7 C (35 F). .Food Res. 7:148, 1942. Harrington, G., and Pearson, A. M.: Chew count as a measure of tenderness of pork loins with various degrees of marbling. Food Res. 27:106r'1962. Harrison, D. L., Lowe, B., McClurg. B. R., and Shearer. P. 8.: Physical, organoleptic and histological changes in three grades of beef during aging. Food Tech. 3:284. 1949. Helser, M. D., Nelson, P. M., and Lowe B.: Influence of the animals age upon the quality and palatability of beef. Iowa Agric. Exper. Sta. Bull. No. 272, 1930. Hiner, R. L., Anderson, E. E., and Fellers, C. R.: Amount and character of connective tissue as it relates to tender- ness in beef muscle. Food Tech. 9:80. 1955. Hiner, R. L., and Hankins, C. G.: Temperature of freezing affects tenderness of beef. Food Ind. 19:1078. 1947. Ho, G. P., and Ritchey, S. J.: Effects of animal age on juiciness and tenderness of beef. Food Tech. 21:114. 1967. Hood. M. P.: Effect of cooking method and grade on beef roasts. J. Am. Dietet. A. 37:363. 1960. Hood, M. P., Thompson, P. W., and Mirone, L.: Effect of cooking on low grade beef. Ga. Agric. Exper. Sta. Bull. NS 4. 1955. Hornstein, I. and Crowe, P. F.: Meat Flavor: Lamb. J. Agric. and Food Chem. 11:147, 1963. 61. 62. 63. 64. 65. 66. 67. 68. 69. 70. 71. 72. 73. 109 Hunt, F. E., Seidler, L. R., and Wood, L.: Cooking choice grade tOp round beef roasts. J. Am. Dietet. A. 43:353. 1963. Knopf, D. H., and Graf, R. L.: Interrelationships of subjective, chemical and sensory evaluations of beef quality. -Food Tech. .13:492, 1959. KnOpf, D. H., and Graf, R. L.: The effect of grade, weight and class of beef carcasses upon certain chemical sensory evaluation of beef quality. .Food Tech. 13:719, 1959. Kramlick, W. E., and Pearson, A..M.: .Some preliminary studies on meat flavor. Food Res. 23:567. 1958. Kramer, A.: The shear-press, a basic tool for the food technologist. The Food Scientist. 5:7, 1961. Latzke, E.: Standardizing methods of roasting beef in experimental cookery. N. Dakota Agric. Exper. Sta. Bull. (No. 242.-1930. (Longree, K.: Quantity Food Sanitation. New York: Interscience Publishers, Inc., 1967. Lowe, B.: Experimental Cookery. 4th ed. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc., 1955. Lowe, B., Crain, E., Amick, G., Riedesel, M., Peet, L. J., Smith, F. B., McClurg, B. R., and Shearer, P. S.: Defrosting and cooking frozen meat. Iowa Agric. Exper. .Sta. Bull. No. 385. 1952. Lowe, B., and Kastelic, J.: Organoleptic. Chemical, physical and microsc0pic characteristics of muscles in eight beef carcasses, differing in age of animal, carcass grade and extent of cooking. Iowa Agric. Exper. Sta. Bull. No. 495,-1961. -Lukianchuk, Z. J.: Effect of two methods of dry heat cookery on palatability and cooking losses of semi- membranosus muscle of beef round. Master's Thesis, .Michigan State University, 1960. .Lushbough, C.-H., Heller, B. S., Weir, E., and Schweigert, B. S.: Thiamine retention in meats after various heat treatments. J. Am. Dietet. A. 40:35. 1962. Lyon, J. R.: Effect of grade and internal temperature on the palatability of reheated roasted beef. Master's Thesis, Kansas State University, 1966. 74. 75. 76. 77. 78. 79. 80. 81. 82. 83. 84. 85. 86. 110 Marshall, N., Wood, L., and Patton, M. B.: Cooking choice grade, top round beef roasts. J. Am. Dietet. A. 35:569. 1959. Marshall, N., Wood, L., and Patton. M. B.: Cooking choice grade, tOp round beef roasts. J. Am. Dietet. A. 36:341. 1960. Masuda, G. M.: Tender cuts of three grades of beef: effect of extent of cooking on weight losses and cost. Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, 1955. Meat Buyer's Guide to Standardized Meat Cuts. Chicago: National Association of Hotel and Restaurant Purveyors. 1961. Mickelsen, O., and Yamamoto, R. 8.: Methods for determin- ation of thiamine. In Glick, D., ed.: Methods of Bio- chemical Analysis. New York: Interscience Publishers, Inc., 1958. Moran, T., and Smith, E. C. B.: Postmortem Changes in animal tissues: The conditioning or ripening of beef. Great Britain Dept. Scientific Ind. Res. Food Investiga- tions Board, Spec. Rep. No. 26, 1929. Morgan, A. F., and Nelson, P. M.: A Study of certain factors affecting shrinkage and Speed in roasting of meat. J. Home Econ. 18:371, 1926. Noble, 1.: Thiamine and riboflavin retention in braised meat. J. Am. Dietet. A. 47:205. 1965. Noble, I., and Gomez. L.: Thiamine and riboflavin in roast beef. J. Am. Dietet. A. 36:46,.1960. Noble, I., Halliday, E. G., and Klass, H. K.: Studies on tenderness and juiciness of cooked meat. J. Home Econ. 26:238. 1934. Parrish, F. C., Jr. and Naumann, H. D.: Relations of sensory tenderness analysis to hydroxyproline content and Kramer shears of beef. (Abstract) J. An. Sci. 19:1241, 1960. Paul, P. C., and Bratzler, L. J.: Studies in tenderness of beef. II. Varying storage times and conditions. Food Res. 20:626. 1955. Paul, P., and Bratzler. L. J.: Studies on tenderness of beef. III. Size of shear cores: end to end variation in the semimembranosus and adductor. .Food Res. 20:635. 1955. 1-..! I! i 87. 88. 89. 90. 91. 92. 93. 94. 95. 96. 97. 98. 99. 111 Paul, P., and Child, A. M.: Effect of freezing and thaw- ing of beef muscle Upon press fluid losses and tenderness. Food Res. 2:339. 1937. Paul, P. C., Lowe, B., and McClurg, B. R.: ,Changes in histological structure and palatability of beef during storage. Food Res. 9:221, 1944. Paul. P., Morr, M. L., Bratzler, L. J., and Ohlson, M.: Effect of boning on cooking losses and palatability of beef. Food Tech. 4:348. 1950. Pearson, A. M., Burnside, J. E., Edwards, H. M., Glassock, R. S., Cunha, T. J., and Novak, A. F.: Vitamin losses in drip obtained upon defrosting frozen meat. Food Res. 16:85. 1951. Ramsbottom, J., Strandine, E. J., and Koonz, C. H.: Comparative tenderness of representative beef muscles. Food Res. 10:497. 1945. Rodgers, C., Mangel,.M., and Baldwin, R.: Comparison of dry heat cooking methods for round steak. .Food Tech. 17:931. 1963. ROdgenS.C., Mangel, M., and Baldwin, R.: Further compari- son of dry heat methods for round steak. Food Tech. 18:130. 1964. Sanderson, M., and Vail, G. E.: Fluid content and tender- ness of three muscles of beef cooked to three internal temperatures. J. Food Sci. 28:590. 1963. .Satorius, M. J., and Child, A. M.: Problems in meat research. I. Four comparable cuts from one animal. II. Reliability of judges scores. Food Res. 3:627, 1938. Schoman, C. M., Jr., and Ball, C. 0.: The effect of oven air temperatures, Circulation and pressure on the roast- ing of tOp rounds of beef. Food Tech. 15:133. 1961. Seidler, L. R., and Wood, L.: Effect of grade on quality roast beef chuck. J. Am. Dietet. A. 46:205. 1965. Shannon, W. G., Marion, W. W., and Stadelman, W. J.: .Effect of temperature and time of scalding on the tender- ness of breast meat. Food Tech. 11:284. 1957. Sharrah, N., Kunze, M. S., and Pangborn, R. M.: Beef tenderness: Comparison of sensory methods with Warner Bratzler and L. E. E. Kramer shear press. Food Tech. 19:238. 1965. 100. 101. 102. 103. 104. 105. 106. 107. 108. 109. 110. 111. 112 Shaw, A. L. D.: Effect of two methods of dry heat cookery on palatability and cooking losses of semi- tendenosus muscle of beef round. Master's Thesis, Michigan State University, 1964. .Siemers, L. L., and Hanning, F.: A Study of certain factors influencing the juiciness of meat. Food Res. 18:113. 1953. Simone, M., Carroll, F. and Chichester, C. O.: Differ- ences in eating quality factors of beef from 18- and 30- month steers. Food Tech. 13:337. 1959. Simone, M., Carroll, F., and Clegg. M. T.: Effect of degree of finish and differences in quality factors of beef. Food Res. 23:32, 1958. Steck, O. D., and West, G. M.: Roasting meat at 250°F. J. Am. Dietet. A. 30:160. 1954. Tanner, B., Clark, N. G., and Hankins, O. G.: Mechanical determination of juiciness of meat. J. Agric. Res. 66:403. 1943. Thille, M., Williams, L. J., and Morgan, A. F.: The effect of fat on shrinkage and Speed in the roasting of beef. J. Home Econ. 24:720. 1932. Tuma, H. J., Henrickson, R. L., Odell, G. V.. and Stephens. D. F.: Variation in the physical and chemical characteristics of the longissimus dorsi muscle from animals differing in age. J. An. Sci. 22:354. 1963. Vail, G. E., and Westerman, B. D.: B-complex vitamins in meat. I. Thiamine and riboflavin content of raw and cooked pork. Food Res. 11:425. 1946. Visser, R. U., Harrison, D. L., Goertz, G. E., Bunyan, M., Skelton, M. M., and MacKintosh, D. L.: The effect of degree of doneness on the tenderness and juiciness of beef cooked in the oven and in deep fat. Food Tech. 14:193. 1960. Walter, M. J., Gall, D. E., Anderson, L. P., and Kline, E. A.: Effect of marbling and maturity on beef tender- ness. (Abstract) J3 Ani Sci. 22:1115, 1963. wanderstock, J. J., and Miller, J. 1.: Quality and palatability of beef as affected by method of feeding and carcass grade. Food Res. 13:291. 1948. 112. 113. 114. 115. 113 Watt, B. K., and Merrill, A. L.: Composition of Foods-— Raw, Processed Prepared. Revised. USDA Agric. Hand- book No. 8, 1963. Webb, N. B., Kahlenberg, O. J., and Naumann, H. D.: Factors influencing beef tenderness. J. An. Sci. 23: 1027. 1964. Weir, C. E.: Palatability Characteristics of meat. In the Science of Meat and Meat Products. San Francisco and London: W. H. Freeman and Co., 1960. Westerman, B. D., Vail, G. E., Tinklin, G. L. and Smith, J.: B-complex vitamins in meat. II. The influence of different methods of thawing frozen steaks Upon their palatability and vitamin content. Food Tech. 3:184, 1949. APPENDIX 114 GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS 1. You will be provided with a written schedule of dates and times the taste panel will meet. Meat samples will be served hot. 2. Please do not eat or smoke for 1/2 hour prior to the time of tasting. 3. Please do not give any reactions, such as grimace, smile, or vocal expression, as you evaluate the sample. 4. Please judge the factors of AROMA, COLOR 0F LEAN. FLAVOR 0F LEAN, FLAVOR OF FAT, JUICINESS, TENDERNESS AND CHEW COUNT, and TEMPERATURE OF SAMPLE ip_the order ip_which thpy are listed on the score card. The factors of AROMA, FLAVOR OF LEAN, and FLAVOR OF FAT will be evaluated for intensity as well as quality. Place a check, using a red pencil, in the block which most nearly fits your evaluation of each factor. Be sure to score each of the factors listed on the score sheet. Use descriptive terms when applicable. 5. Score each meat sample independently of others. ************* AROMA. Evaluate aroma on the basis of a sniff obtained imme— diately after the removal of the plate cover. Consider the intensity of the aroma as well as the quality. ACOLOR Q§_LEAN. Record your overall impression of color as it appears from the exterior to the center of the lean. FLAVOR QF LEAN. Cut a piece of meat for flavor evaluation one-half inch in from the edge of the lean (use the side of the slice next to the browned fat surface). Consider the intensity of the flavor as well as the quality. Rinse your mouth with the water provided after the flavor evaluation. FLAVOR Q§_§AT. Cut a piece of fat for flavor evaluation from the fat with browned surface, including both the browned sur- face and the interior fat in your sample. Consider the in- tensity of the flavor as well as the quality. Crackers and/or water may be used to remove traces of fat from your mouth. 115 116 JUICINESS. Evaluate the impression of juiciness produced during the first few chews. Cut a piece of meat for juici— ness evaluation one-half inch in from the edge of the lean, adjacent to the sample used for the flavor of lean evaluation. TENDERNESS AND CHEW COUNT. Evaluate the ease of mastication to determine tenderness. Use the pre-cut circle in your sample for your Chew count. Count the number of chews re- quired for the Circle of meat to disappear from your mouth without conscious swallowing. Record the number of chews in the appropriate block corresponding to the tenderness score you assign the sample. TEMPERATURE Q§_SAMPLE. .Evaluate your impression of the temperature of the sample when first tasted. BE SURE TO CHECK THE SCORE CARD WHEN YOU FINISH EACH SAMPLE TO MAKE SURE NO FACTORS HAVE BEEN OMITTED. 117 Oddo mmOUm mmmm “mquEEoo CHOU mqmzHm> Cmsoa mHquHHm mHmumumpoz Mum> hHmEmuuxm mun no: 24mg mup MUHDn moHsn mo meEmHuxm mun mum> mun uwCuHmz >0H5b >UHDn mum> mHmEmHuxm mmmzHoHDb *QHQM nummoomCD Hoom mum> noon ECHpmS @000 @000 >Hm> quHHmoxm muHHmso H¢qm lummoummEH mHquHHm mHmumnmpoz lummoumm mHuanHm mHmumumpoz mnm> wuHmCmuCH *QHQM IuQCUUMCD Hoom >um> Moon ECHpmz @000 poom >Hm> quHHmoxm >uHHmso zmqm TummuummEH wHquHHm mHmumuwpoz lummuumm mHquHHm mHoumnmUoz >Hm> wuHmCmuCH uso uso C3oun xCHm quHH xCHm 24mm Ismsouzu Inmsonzu quHH CBOHQ Ou CBOHQ xCHm 0p moot cu mo mwum >Hm> >mu0 0» menu ECHUmz EDHCCS C30HQ quHA CBOHQ quHA moqoo *mHnm lummUUMCD Hoom mum> Hoom ECHpmz poow poom >Hm> quHHmoxw huHHmso mHQH mHQH mHQa lummoumm lummouwm mHnH pmoCDOConm CwUCCOCoum pmoCDOCoum m AmCmuCH «20m¢ numeHmmEH mHquHHm >Hmumnmpoz lumwoumm hHquHHm meumumpoz >um> u. H N m d m m b mOBU¢h when .oz 8600 maven 118 Table 15. Percentages of total, drip and volatile cooking losses for six replications of roasts served immediately and held by three methods. W Method Animal Cooking Losses (replication) Total Drip Volatile Control 1 11.06 3.23 7.83 2 11.76 5.04 6.72 3 15.93 5.25 10.68 4 11.65 3.14 8.51 5 12.06 3.43 8.63 6 11.44 3.80 7.64 Average 12.32 3.98 8.34 Unsliced 1 12.06 2.25 9.81 2 13.62 4.60 9.02 3 11.87 3.28 8.59 4 9.12 4.33 4.79 5 12.11 4.38 7.73 6 16.09 5.21 10.83 Average 12.48 4.01 8.47 Sliced 1 13.75 5.10 8.65 2 8.38 2.33 6.05 3 12.72 4.32 8.40 4 14.67 4.93 9.74 5 14.52 5.62 8.90 6 13.49 4.45 9.04 Average 12.92 4.46 8.46 Refrigerated 1 13.80 4.44 9.36 and Reheated 2 11.81 4.16 7.65 3 11.33 5.32 6.01 4 12.51 3.39 9.12 5 13.46 4.47 8.99 6 13.71 4.62 9.02 Average 12.77 4.40 8.37 119 [AI-Ill a... in... mm.mH He.o om.o «5.0 Hm.H mmmum>< oo.HH mm.o mm.o mm.o Hm.H m mH.mH me.o om.o mm.o mH.H m me.HH me.o om.o mo.H mm.H e mm.0H mm.o mm.o mm.o me.H m Hm.eH mm.o mm.o we.o me.H m pmummnmmupcm mm.HH me.o mm.o Ho.H mo.m H pmumummHummm . . . mN.H om.o me.~ mm.e mmmum>4 . . . mm.H mH.o me.> em.s m . . . om.H No.0 Hm.s mm.s m . . . Hm.H we.o ms.m om.m w . .. 6H.H we.o me.m Hm.m m . . . mm.H me.o OH.m mm.m m . . . m¢.H mm.o mh.> Om.m H UOOHHm . . . mm.m HH.H em.m Ho.e mmmum>< . . . Hm.m Ho.H mo.m Ho.m m . . . 0>.N No.H mH.N Hm.m m . . . Hm.m He.m me.m mm.s e . . . mm.m Hm.o HH.H mm.m m . . . mo.m sm.o He.m He.m m . . . ms.m mo.H es.m om.m H meHHmcp o o o fined o o o o o o o o o mmmum>¢ O O O 000d 0 I O O 0 O O O O m 0 O O omod o O O O O 0 O O O m o I O wmom 0 0 0 O o 0 O O 0 fl 0 o o amen“ o o o o o o o o o m 0 O O mNOd O O O 0 O 0 I O 0 N o o 0 ”wow 0 o o o a o I o 0 1“ Houuc8 mmmmoq mmmmoq mHHumHo> CHHC Hence ACOHumoHHmmuc screws mCHumemm mCHoHHm mommOAJmCHpHom HmEHC< mCHpHom .meoeume mmurn SC 6H8: pCm mHmuMHmeEH pm>uwm mummon mo mCoHumoHHmmu me How mommoH mo mommucwoumm .mH mHQmB Table 17. Percentages of servable meat and scrap for roasts served immediately and held by three methods. Method Animal Servable Meat Scrap (replication) Control 1 75.68 12.14 2 74.06 12.82 3 71.70 11.49 4 79.56 7.46 5 75.07 11.53 6 81.68 5.92 Average 76.29 10.23 Unsliced 1 73.06 9.76 2 58.89 22.64 3 70.30 13.75 4 67.15 14.92 5 72.21 11.35 6 67.67 11.94 Average 68.23 14.06 Sliced 1 55.10 21.40 2 75.59 6.15 3 63.14 14.07 4 63.46 14.38 5 67.05 9.27 6 66.47 10.77 Average 65.14 12.67 Refrigerated 1 59.00 12.68 and Reheated 2 58.84 12.62 3 58.15 18.49 4 58.39 15.59 5 58.01 13.15 6 60.77 12.15 Average 58.86 14.11 Tenderness Juiciness of Fat Color of Flavor of Flavor Lean Lean Animal Average quality characteristic scores of seven judges for six replications of (replication) Aroma roasts served immediately and held by three methods. Table 18. Holding Method l‘OLDLDGN) LDLO'd'ifiisflLf) LOLOI‘Md'LO LOSHLDLOLOLD OO)N)OOI\ Ln<flLOLDLDH HN.Hm mmmum>¢ mom.m om.mH mm.mm m mHH.m Hm.mH me.om m mmH.m mm.mH NN.HH H HmH.H mm.oH mm.mm m HHm.m mm.sH mo.mH m pmummnmm pew emm.m ms.mH mH.mm H pwumummHummm Hmm.m mo.mH mm.Hm mmmum>¢ Hmo.m HN.mH Hm.Hm m HHm.m sH.mH mo.mm m nmo.H sm.om No.mm H mHm.m HH.NN mw.mm m mmm.m Hm.mH om.mH m smm.m mo.mH om.mm H pmoHHm mom.m mH.sH mH.sm mmmum>¢ Nm6.m. oo.mm oH.mm m oom.~ mm.>H HH.mm m mmm.m mo.mH NH.om H Hem.m mm.mH Hm.Hm m mmm.m mH.mH ms.mm N ome.m Hm.HH 0H.mm H pmoHHmcD mmm.n sm.mH mm.mm mmmum>¢ owN.H nm.mH om.om m Hmm.m mm.mH mm.mm m Osm.m ms.om Hm.mm H msm.H mm.mH mo.em m mom.m Hm.mH mm.om m mmm.m mo.mH mo.mm H Houuaoo .EU.Um m>HDolm£uIHwUCDImmH¢ .Em\mouom;.nq ACOHDMUHHQCHV mmwnmlummam HOEMHM UHSHm mmmnm HMEHC¢ Conuwz .mponums woman >9 pHmC pCm >HmHMHmeEH pm>umm mummou mo mCoHumoHHmmH me How mmCHm> mmmumlummnm pCm UHSHM mmmum mo mommquuumm Cmmz .mH mHQme 123 Table 20. pH values for six replications of roasts served immediately and held by three methods. Method Animal pH Raw pH Cooked (replication) Control 1 6.0 5.9 2 5.7 5.8 3 5.8 5.8 4 5.9 6.0 5 5.7 5.9 6 5.8 5.9 Average 5.8 5.9 Unsliced 1 5.8 5.9 2 5.7 5.7 3 5.9 5.8 4 5.9 5.8 5 5.7 5.8 6 5.7 5.7 Average 5.8 5.8 Sliced 1 5.8 5.9 2 5.9 5.8 3 5.8 5.9 4 5.9 5.9 5 5.8 5.9 6 5.6 5.8 Average 5.8 5.9 Refrigerated 1 5.9 5.9 and Reheated 2 5.7 5.8 3 6.1 5.9 4 5.8 5.9 5 5.7 5.9 6 6.2 5.8 Average 5.9 5.9 124 Table 21. Thiamine content for four replications of roasts served immediately and held by three methods. Treatments Animals Thiamine Content (replications) (mcg. per gram) Control 1 0.78 2 0.78 3 0.75 4 0.81 Average 0.78 Unsliced 1 0.80 2 0.80 3 0.76 4 0.76 Average 0.78 Sliced 1 0.76 2 1.04 3 0.96 4 0.65 Average 0.85 Refrigerated 1 0.79 and Reheated 2 0.76 3 0.91 4 0.77 Average 0.81 S E R A R m l. V. H S R E w |l|||llllllllllllllflllllllllH 3196 3410 I l IHIIUIIII'