TENUER CUTS $5 THREE GRADES OF BEEF:
EFFECT OF EX'FEi‘éT 0F COOKING ON
W 316545? LOSSES AND COSoT

Thai: for flu Beam a6 M. S.
mes-4mm “AYE COLLEGE
Grates M. Mama
1955

0-169

111111ng11111111111qu “INN

277 2161

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Tender Cuts of Three Grades of Beef: Effect of
Extent of Cooking on ‘w’eight Losses and Cost.

presented by
Grace It: 11:18

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

lbster of Sci—egee—degree ill—Institution Adminimration.

M/W

flajor professor

December ’1 C 14
Date 1/, 11,5

 

 

 

I

 

 

 

 

TENDER CUTS OF THREE GRADES OF BEEF: EFFECT OF

EXTENT OF COOKIES ON WEIGHT LOSSES AND COST

By

Grace M. Meeude

A THESIS

Submitted to the School of Graduate Studies of Michigan
State College of Agriculture and Applied Science
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

EASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Institution Administration

Year 1955

ABSTFACT

The primary ohfiectives of this study were to determine the effect
of the progressive increases in the internal tamprrature on the cooking
weight losses and portion costs of the tender cuts from Choice, Good,
and Commercial beef carcasses. The secondary ohjective was to compare
the palatahility of all tender cuts of the thrre grades cooked to a
final internal temp'rature of 900 C.

Boneless oven-ready roasts were prepared from the ribs, sirloin,
short loin, and round. The rollrd rib and tOp round were each divided
into three cuts; the sirloin butt was dividrd into two cuts and the
strip loin was left whole for roasting.

The individually wrapped oven-ready roasts were frozen at -12.20 C
and stored at the same temperature until defrosting just prior to cooking.
They were defrosted in a refrigerator at 5° C to an internal terperature
of approximately 00 C.

Each cut was cooked uncovered at a constant oven temperature of
1500 C. Four cuts were roasted simultaneously. The roasts and drippings
were weighed during the cooking prriod at the following specified internal
temperatures: 50°, 60°, 700, 800, and 900 C. Percentage losses were cal-
culated for volatile and total cooking weight losses and drippings at
these intervals.

The average cost prr pound of the individual cooked roasts for each
of the three grades at specified internal temperatures was found by di-
viding the raw weight cost of the roast by the cooked weight. The

average portion cost of the cooked roasts was based on 2.5 ounce portions,

fl

‘7

1,3\

.0812

k

with the exception of the strip loin which was based on 4 ounce
portions.

Samples were scored for palatability by a taste panel, using a
scale with a range from O to 10, with 10 high.

The increased total cooking weight losses and the corresponding
increased cost per pound of the cooked roasts point out the importance
of the extent of cooking roast meats, particularly in relation to food
budget control. Overcooking of meats from the well done stage to
90° C internal temperature resulted in products with fairly low palata-
bility scores as well as increased cooking losses and increased portion
costs.

The roasts of Commercial grade compared favorably in palatability
factors, except for tenderness, with similar cuts of Good and Choice
grades. The roasts from Choice grade were appreciably more tender than
those from Good and Commercial grades. However, this quality alone did
"not make the roasts from Choice grade more acceptable than roasts from
Good and Commercial grades.

Since no significant differences in total cooking weight losses
among the three grades were found, it appeared that tender cuts of
Commercial grade might be considerably more economical to purchase than
similar cuts from Good and Choice grades. On the basis of total cooking
weight losses and costs of edible portion of roasts at 80° 0 internal
temperature, it appeared in this study that the sirloin butt cuts were

the most economical of the tender cuts prepared.

ii

ACKNOWLEDGMEHTS

The writer wishes to express her sincere appreciation to Dr. Pearl
Aldrich for her guidance, assistance, and inspiration throughout the
course of this study. She is also indebted to Professor Katherine Hart
for her interest ard helpful suggestions.

Grateful acknowledgment is also extended to Dr. Pearl Aldrich,
Professor Katherine Hart, Mrs. Kathryn Gardner, Mrs. Marjorie Prior,
Mrs. Charlotte Holm, hiss Marie Ferree, and hr. Lymcn J. Eratzler for
their participation 0n the taste panel. The writer also wishes to
thank Dr. William Eaten for assistance in statistical analysis of the

data and Mr. Lyle Thorburn, Mr. James Stiles, and Mr. Donald Hathaway

for their help in purchasing the meat.and performing the cutting test

(I)

iii

TABLE OF CONTEHTS

ACKNOWLEDGMERTS

LIST OF TABLES.

LIST OF FIGURES . . . . . . .

INTRODUCTION .

REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . .

Factors Arfecting Cooking Height Losses of Meat .

Composition of meat. . .
Oven temperature. . . .

Internal temperature . .
Method of cooking . . . . .

Ripening . . .
Initial temperature.
Surface area . . . . . . . . . . . .

Style of cutting .
Vitamin Losses of Meat during Cooking .
Paletability Factors .
Aroma and flavor. . . . . . . . .
Appearance and texture. . . . . . . . .
Tenderness and shear force"
Juiciness and press fluid.
Methods of Evaluating Palatability of Meats
Subjective meth d
Objective method . . . . .
Objective and <Jub ective rethode . . . . .
Cost or Edible Portion
METHOD OF PROCEDURE . . . . . . . . .
Preparation of Cuts . . . . . . . . . . .
Dissection of carcass

Division into oven- ready cuts
lreezing and storage of cute

#1

41
Ml
b2

iv

TABLE or corn'sn'rs (Contd.)

Cooking of Cut: . . . . . .
Defrosting of cuts. . . . .
Roasting process . . . .

Preparation of Samples .

Samples for shear force readings . . .
Samples for palatability scoring .

Tests and Records . . . . . .
Sheer force tests . . . .
Subjective tests . . . . .
Cost for edible portion .
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIOH. . . . .
Cooking Weight Losses . . . . . . . .
Total losses. . . .
Dripping IOSses. . . . . .
Volatile losses. . . . . . . . . .
Palatability Factors. . .
Aroma and flavor . . . . . . . . .
Juiciness . . . .
Appearance and texture
C'Tenderness and shear force .
Edible Portion Cost
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS . . . .
LITERATURE CITED . . . . . . . .
APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . .

Cooking Losses
Palatability Scores

97
. 10C

. 105
. 120

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

LIST OF TABLES
Distribution of weight of edible meat from aninal A
of Commercial grade . . . . . . . . . . .

Weight and cost of oven-ready cuts from three aninals
of Commercial grade .

Average percentages of cooking losses from sirloin butt

roasts of three grades of beef at specified internal
temperatures . . . . . . . . . . . .

Average percentages of cooking losses from t0p round
roasts of three grades of beef at specified internal
teI‘ perature' s s - e s s s s s 0

Average percentages of cooking losses from strip loin
roasts of three grades of beef at specified internal
temperatures 0 s o o e s s s s 0 0 e 0

Average percentages of cooking losses from rolled rib
roasts of three grades of beef at specified internal
temperatures . . . . . '. . . . . . .

Analyses of variance of total cooking weight losses at
specified internal temperatures . . . . . .

Analyses of variance of dripping losses at soecified
internal temperatures . . . . . . . . .

Analyses of variance of volatile losses at specified
internal temperatures . . .

Arerage aroma. flavor, and Juiciness scores of
Commercial, Good, and Choice beef cuts cooked to
90 C internal temperature

Analyses of variance of aroma and flavor scores. .

Analysis of variance of Juiciness scores . . . .

Average appearance and texture scores of Connerical,
Good, and Choice beef cuts cooked to 90° C internal

terporature s s s s s s s s s o s o s 0

Analyses of variance of appearance and texture scores.

49

50

52

54

55

62

65

72

7h

75
77

. 78
- 79

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

16.

17.

19.

20.

21.

22.

26.

27.

28.

vi

LIST OF TABLES (Contd.)

Average tenderness scores and shear force readings of
Commercial, Good, and Choice beef cuts cooked to 90° C
internal tenperature . . . . . . . . . . . 83

Analyses of variance of tenderness scores and shear
force readings 0 O O O O l o 0 o o a s 0 Eu

Cost per pound of cooked Commercial, Good, and Choice
beef cuts at internal temperatures of 50°, 60°. 70°,

80°, and 90°C. . . . . 87
Cost per portion of cooked Commercial, Good, and Choice

beef cuts at internal temperatures of 50°, 60°. 70°,

80°. and 90° c . . . . 91
Percentage of total cooking losses of roasts cooked to

50° C internal temperature . . . . . . . . . 105
Percentage of total cooking losses of roasts cooked to

60° C internal temperature . . . . . . . . . 106
Percentage of total cooking losses of roasts cooked to

70° C internal temperature . . . . . . . . . 107
Percentage of total cooking losses of roasts cooked to

80° C internal temperature . . . . . . . . . 108

Percentage of total cooking losses of roasts cooked to
900 C internal tenperatu:e . . . . . . . . . 109

Percentage of dripping losses of roasts cooked to
50° C internal temperature . . . . . . . . . 110

Percentage of dripping lOsses of roasts cooked to
60° C internal temperature . . . . . . . . . 111

Percentage of dripping losses of roasts cooked to
70° C internal temperature . . . . . . . . . 112

Percentage of dripping losses of roasts cooked to
80° C internal temperature . . . . . . . . . 113

Percentage of dripping losses of roasts cooked to
90° C internal temperature . . . . . . . . . 11h

Percentage of volatile losses of roasts cooked to
50° C internal temperature . . . . . . . . . 115

Table 30.
Table 31.
Table 32.
Table 33.
Table 34.
Table 35.
Table 36.
Table 37.
Table 38.
Table 39.

Table 40.

vii

LIST OF TABLES (Contd.)

Percentage of volatile losses of roasts cooked to
60° C internal temperature . . . . . . .

Percentage of volatile losses of roasts cooked to
70° C internal temperature . . . . . . .

Percentage of volatile losses of roasts cooked to
800 C internal temperature . . . .

Percentage of volatile losses of roasts cooked to
90° 0 internal temperature . .

Average aroma scores of roasts cooked to 90° 0
internal temperature . . . . . .

Average flavor scores of roasts cooked to 900 C
internal tenperature . . . . . . . .

Average Juiciness scores of roasts cooked to
90° C internal temperature . . . . .

Average appearance scores of roasts cooked to
900 C internal temperature . . . . . . .

Average texture scores of roasts cooked to 900 0
internal temperature . . . . .

Average tenderness scores of roasts cooked to
900 C internal temperature

Average shear force readings of roasts cooked to
90° C internal tenperature . . . . . . .

116

117

118

119

121

122

123

124

125

126

viii

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1. Beef chart identifying tender cuts used in study

Figure 2. Total losses of beef roasts from Commercial, Good, and
Choice grades at 50° C internal temperature . .

Figure 3. Total losses of beef roasts from Commercial, Good, and
Choice grades at 60° C internal temperature. . . .

Figure D. Total lessee of beef roasts from Commercial. Good, and
Choice grades at 70° C internal temperature. . . .

Figure 5. Total losses of beef roasts from Comnercial. Good, and
Choice grades at 80° C internal temperature.

Figure 6. Total losses of beef roasts from Commerical, Good, and
Choice grades at 90° C internal temperature. . . .

Figure 7. Dripping losses of beef roasts from Commerical. Good,
and Choice grades at 50°. 60°. 70°. and 80° 0
internal temperatures . . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 8. Dripping losses of beef roasts from Commerical. Good,
and Choice grades at 90° C internal temperature . .

Figure 9. Volatile losses of beef roasts from Commerical, Good,
and Choice grades at 50°, 60°, 70°, and 80° C
internal temperatures . . . . . . . . . .

Figure 10. Volatile losses of beef roasts from Commerical, Good,
and Choice grades at 90° C internal temperature . .

Figure ll. Average aroma, flavor, and Juiciness scores of beef
roasts from Comnercial, Good, and Choice grades
cooked to 90° C internal temperature . . . . .

Figure 12. AVerege appearance and texture scores of beef roasts
from Comnercial, Good, and Choice grades cooked to
90° C internal temperature . . . . . . . . .

.Figure 13. Average tenderness scores and shear force readings
of beef roasts from Commercial, Good, and Choice
grades cooked to ?O° C internal temperature . . .

Figure 14. Cost per pound of cooked Commercial, Good, and Choice
beef cuts at 60°, 70°, 80°, and 90° C internal
temperatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

INTRODUCTION

All food service directors are concerned with one common
objective: to serve food of the highest quality, consistent with
budget allowances. From the standpoint of nutritive value. pepup
larity, and cost, meat is one of the most important items on the
institution menu. Meat purchases constitute approximately 2“ per
cent of total expenditures for food in restaurants (92) and 30 per
cent in hotels (71). A recent study of the distribution of the food
cost dollar in a college women's residence hall showed the total
percentage cost of meat, poultry, and fish to be 33 per cent (86).
Since expenditures for meat comprise a large percentage of the food
dollar. information regarding the cost of meat is of great concern
to the food service director.

The cooking weight lessee of meat attributable to the internal
temperature to which meat is cooked are of utmOst importance when
cost is considered. When other conditions are standardized, the
total cooking weight losses of meats are found to increase with rise
in internal temperature. The primary objective of this study is to
determine the cooking weight losses that occur with each progressive
increase in the internal temperature of the meat. ‘Excessive cooking
weight losses of meat have been shown to decrease the quantity of
editde cooked meat and thus to increase the cost of the edible cooked

Portion. Low oven temperatures have also been correlated with

minimal cooking losses. Fortunately, the internal temperature to
which meat is cooked and the oven temperature. both factors which
affect cooking weight losses, can be controlled. Excessive cooking
losses of meat have been found to result in marked undesirable effects
in its appearance, palatability. and nutritive value. Therefore,

data about the cooking weight losses of meat are of interest from
both the practical and scientific standpoint.

Meat cookery studies were conducted at the University of Illinois
as early as 1898. Since that time.Agricultural Experiment Stations
and colleges. the United States Department of Agriculture, and in-
dividual investigators have contributed many findings. The majority
of these studies has been limited to family—size cuts or to single
muscles. Because of the importance of meat cookery in institution
kitchens, this experiment is based on large-size beef cuts suitable
for institution use.

The first objective of this study is to determine the effect
of the internal temperatures on the cooking weight losses of the
roasts prepared from the tender cuts of Choice, Good, and Commercial
beef carcasses. The second objective is to compare the effect of
the degree of internal temperature on the edible portion cost of the
roasts. The third objective is to compare the palatability of all
the cuts of the three grades, cooked to a final internal temperature
of 90° C.

This study presents the average percentage weight losses of

beef roasts that occur with each 10° 0 rise in internal temperature

from 50° to 90° C. These average percentage cooking weight losses
and the original cost of the meat provide a basis for calculating the
edible portion cost of the cooked meat. The increase in cost and
decrease in palatability attributable to over cooking of meats are

of special concern to the food service operator.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Factors Affecting the Cooking Weight Losses of Heat

The total loss that occurs during the cooking of meat may vary

0

from approximately 5 to more than 50 per cent (55). Both volatile

and dripping losses are included in the total cooking loss. The

volatile loss consists chiefly of the evaporation of water, whereas
the drippings contain fat, water, salts, and extractives. Investi-

gations have revealed several factors which may affect the cooking

weight losses.

Composition of meat

The earliest research on the cooking losses of meat was begun

in 1898 at the University of Illinois. Grindley, McCormack, and

Porter (#1) observed that the evaporation of water during the cooking

of meat constituted the major portion of the weight less. They also

found that the amount of water lost when meats were pan-broiled,
'boiled, or stewed varied inversely with the fat content of the meat.

No experiments on roasted meats were reported from these investigations.

Ill l90h, Grindley and HoJonnier (42) noted that both water and fat
accounted for the weight loss in meats that were roasted. They
I'eported the average water loss for boiled meets to be 30.75 per cent

and the average fat loss, 1.21 per cent. In comparison, meats

I'Oa-sted to the rare stage showed an average water loss of 17.53 per

cent and an average fat loss of 9.83 per cent.

Bevier, Grindley, and their associates (8, 41, #2), from their
intensive research on meat cookery, concluded that the composition
of the meat was one of three factors which affected the nature and
extent of the cooking loSses. The other two factors mentioned by
Bevier and co—workers were the cooking temperature and the internal
temperature to which the meat was cooked.

According to studies of Alexander (3) on rib roasts ranging from
Choice to Canner grade beef, well-fattened beef ribs of high grade
had greater dripping losses and lower volatile losses than did the
lean ribs of low grades. She found that dripping losses for rib
roasts cooked at an oven temperature of 125° C to an internal temper-
ature of 58° C varied from 3.? per cent for the Choice grade to 0.4
per cent for the Canner grade; the evaporation losses ranged from 6.5

per cent for Choice to 10.9 per cent for the Canner grade. The
results of Black, Warner, and Wilson (9) substantiated the findings
of Alexander.

Since increased fat content is generally associated with increase
in: grade, cuts from carcasses of higher grade usually have greater
(Hooking losses. Alexander and Clark (5) found this relationship
evident in their experiments with lamb and mutton roasts. Lows (55)

makes the following statement concerning the composition of meat.

"In general a cut of meat containing a high percentage

of fat has a greater cooking loss than a comparable
cut containing a smaller proportion of fat.“

Helser, Nelson, and Lowe (47) concluded from their studies that
beef roasts with a high fat content had a greater total cooking weight

1088 and also a higher dripping loss than the lean roasts. For ribs

of feeder and fattened two year old steers cooked at 125° C oven
temperature to an internal temperature of 57° C, total cooking weight
losses were 10.6 per cent and 15.1} per cent and the dripping losses

were 1.2 per cent and 6.9 per cent, respectively.

In 1932, Thille, Williamson, and Morgan (88) also presented
evidence that the total cooking weight losses of fat roasts were

greater than those of lean roasts. They cooked standing ribs of

beef in a 210° C oven to an internal temperature of 65° C. Their

findings showed the average total weight loss for lean roasts to

be 28.6 per cent and the average total weight loss for fat-covered

roasts to be 3?.9 per cent. The difference in total weight losses

was attributed to the rendering out of the surface fat.
The cooking weight losses, according to the results of the

study by Dunnigan (38) on two grades of sirloin butts, were directly

related to the composition of the meat. For the fatter roasts, the

total cooking losses were greater.

From the study by Brown (15) in 1948, it appeared that the
amount of external fat did not increase the total cooking weight loss.
She Cooked the inside and outside cuts of both rounds and chucks of

U- S. Good grade at an oven temperature of 149° C to an internal

temperature of 79° C. Her results indicated that the inside chuck

cut had a higher total cooking weight loss than the outside chuck.

ins ide round, and outside round cuts.‘. The inside chuck roast was

the only fabricated cut used without a thick layer of external fat.
Brown did find that the cuts with a heavier fat covering showed higher
dripping losses then cuts with a relatively small amount of external

fat. This is in agreement with the findings of other investigators
( 3 p 9. 1+7. ) °

Oven temperature

The total cooking weight losses of meat were found to be related
directly to oven temperature by Bevier and Sprague (8). They reported
that the total cooking weight losses of seared one-rib beef cuts,
cooked to the rare stage, varied from 5.9 per cent for roasts finished
at 83° C oven temperature to 20.6 per cent for those finished at 260°
C oven temperature.

Three-rib beef cuts were roasted to the medium stage by Latzke'
(53,54)., She found the weight loss for seared roasts ranged from
13-52 per cent at 110° C oven temperatu=-e to 22.49 per cent at 175°
0 oven temperature for finishing. Cline and co-workers (26) presented
similar results. They noted that the total cooking weight losses of
tihreenrib beef cuts roasted to an internal temperature of 57° C varied
frorn 6.79 per cent for cuts cooked at 110° C constant oven temperature
to 30.44 per cent for those cooked at 260° C C0398!“ 0'03 temperature.

Child and Satorius (22) obtained increased cooking losses with

1“creased oven temperatures when meat was cooked to an internal

temperature of 58° C. The oven temperatures used were 125° C. 150° C,

175° C, and 200° C. When the meat was cooked well done. however,
there was no significant difference in cooking losses attributable to
oven temperatures. The increased losses of well done meats roasted
at low even temperatures were attributed to the long cooking period
required for meats to reach the well done stage. Alexander and Clark
(1+) also commented that cooking losses of meat at the well done stage
were less definitely related to oven temperature than were the losses
for meats at lower internal temperature.

Cover (64) found that cooking losses for paired threeerib beef
roasts cooked medium rare averaged 7.1 per cent when a 125° C OVOD '88
used and 20.2 per cent when a 225° C oven temperature was used. For
three—rib beef cuts cooked to the well done stage at these same two
even temperatures, Cover reported the cooking losses to be 23.0 and
37.5 per cent, respectively. Other studies (3, 24, 56) have verified
that low oven temperatures for roasting result in lower cooking weight
losses than those obtained with high even temperatures.

From their intensive study on flesh foods, McCance and Shipp (59)
reported that higher temperatures increased the rate and extent of
the cooking weight losses of meat. They cooked pieces of loin, liver,
kidney, tripe, and brain of beef in steam at 80°C, 100° C, and 120° C.

Kore recently. Stech and West (85) have experimented with roasting
meats for institution use at 250° 1' (121° C) oven temperature. Th9?
rePorted an average shrinkage of 25 per cent for boned beef chuck
cooked to 170° F, 36 per cent shrinkage for boned leg of lamb cooked

to 180° F, and 30 per cent shrinkage for boned leg of veal cooked to
170° F.

Internal temperature

The internal temperature to which meat is cooked has a marked
influence on the total cooking weight losses. Bevier and Sprague (8)
cooked paired left and right one—rib beef roasts at the same oven
temperature but for different lengths of time. They found that the
more thoroughly cooked roasts shrank more than those which were not
cooked to the well done stage. From experiments on roasting one-rib
beef cuts to rare, medium, and well done stages. in which degree of
doneness was determined by their appearance when carved, Grindley and
Mojonnier (4?) concluded that the cooking weight losses increased in
proportion to the degree of cooking.

Beef rib roasts were cooked at 125° C oven temperature to three
‘varying internal temperatures by Latzke (54). She reportedlosses of
.16.8 per cent for roasts cooked to 51° C, 18.6 per cent for roasts
scooked to 61° C, and 22.3 per cent for roasts cooked to an internal
‘tgmperature of 710 C. Cover's data (64), cited previously, also
indicated that well done roasts have greater total cooking losses
than medium rare roasts.

Child and Fogarty (21), in their experiments with the semi-
tendinosus muscle of beef round cooked at 150° C oven temperature to
58° C and 75° C internal temperature, showed that the higher internal
temperature increased the total cooking weight losses.

According to Paul and McClean (70), who cooked veal roasts at

163° C oven tenperature to four different internal tezperatures,

10 '

71° c, 77° c, 82° c, and 88° c, the total cooking losses increased
steadily with increase in the internal temperature.

Aldrich (l) cooked paired cuts of U. 5. Choice and U. S. Good
beef rounds at 150° C constant oven temperature to an internal temper-

ature of 90° C. One out of each pair was cooked an additional hour.
The average losses for Choice and Good cuts cooked to 90° C internal
temperature were 34.4 and 35.0 per cent: for the cuts cooked an

additional hour, the average losses were for Choice and Good grades,

38.2 and 39.6 per cent, respectively.

fiethod of 0001:1115;

As early as 1904, Grindley and Regennier (42) published results
of experiments on changes occuring in meat cooked by oiiferent methods.
Their data showed that meats cooked in hot water had the highest
average total weight loss and roasted meats had the least average
cooking weight loss 01 the methous studied. Sauteed meats showed a
slightly higher weight loss than pan-broiled meats.

Harrison (46) studied the shrinkage of oeef cooked to 70° C
internal taipcrature in air, steam, water, and Let at 100° C. Both
Lloss of weight and decrease in volume were considered under the term
"ehrink". Cuts cooked in air had the least loss and those cooked in
fat had the greatest loss. The amount of total losses obtained from
cuts cooked in steam and water were similarmd gave intermediate values.

Results of 10 methods of roasting beef were reported by Cline

and her associates (26). Prime ribs of beef were first seared and

11

then finished at diiferem oven temperatures; one beef cut was begun
in a cold oven and then was seared and finished in a 149° C oven;

varying degrees of constant oven temperatures were also used. From

their studies, the investigators concluded that searing increases

the cooking weight losses and low oven temperatures were correlated

with low cooking losses.

Stanley and Cline (84) also observed that searing a must at

the beginning of the cooking period does not reduce the amount of

shrinkage. They found the total loss to be 17.36 per cent for beef

rib cuts seared at 255° c for 20 minutes and finished at 149° c to
2211 internal temperature of 58° C. The 1088 was 11.31 per cent for,

comparable rib cuts cooked at 150° C constant oven temperature to

58° 0 internal temperature.

The use of skewers to reduce cooking losses has been the subject

of a number of experiments. Several investigators (18, 28, 63) have

reported that the use 01 skewers reduced the cooking timeaid thus
lowered the cooking losses. Morgan and Nelson (63) were among the
first investigators to report the use of skewers in meat roasting.
They found the total loss of weight in skewered roasts averaged 27.3
per cent as compared with 31.5 per cent in the unskewered roasts.
Cover (28) cooked paired rounds, arm-bone chuck, and standing rib

roasts to the well done stage with and without skewers at an oven

temperature of 125° C. Ber results supported the findings of Morgan

and Nel son.

12

Grindley and MoJonnier (42) compared the total losses of meats
cooked in covered pans with meats cooked in uncovered pans. The total
cooking weight losses were greater for the meats cooked in covered
pans than in those cooked uncovered. This increased loss was
attributed chiefly to the increased amount of water removed from meat
in the covered pans. Morgan and Nelson (63), from their experiments
with beef ribs cooked in open and covered pans, found the average
losses to be.26.8 per cent for the meats cooked in open pans and 29.5
per cent for the meats cooked in covered containers.

Freeman (40) compared beef stews and pot roasts cooked by the
conventional method and in the pressure sauce pan. With the exception
of the pressure-cooked oot roasts, the meats lost approximately 45
per cent of their weight during cooking. The cooking weight loss of
the pressure—cooked pot roasts was 40.6 per cent, but the difference

in cooking less attributable to method was not statistically significant.

Ripening

According to Alexander and Clark (5), increased ripening periods
sifter slaughter decreased the cooking losses and shortened the time
required to cook lamb and mutton. Moran and Smith (62) found the
asrerage cooking losses of top round, bottom round, and loin of beef
a1?ter ripening 3, 7, and 16 days to be 29.5, 24.1, and 23.9 per cent,
respectively.

Harrison (46) also found that roasts with a longer ripening

‘Perdod had a lower weight loss during cooking in air. However, the

13

roasts cooked in steam, fat, and water all had a greater weight loss

with a longer ripening period.

Initial teMperature

Cline and co-workers (26) have shown that both the total cooking
losses and cooking time were affected by the initial temperature of
roasts when they were put into the oven. Roasts with low initial
internal temperatures at the beginning of the cooking period showed
greater cooking losses than did roasts with_hig or internal tempera-
tures when cooking began. The Committee on Preparation Factors,
National Cooperative Meat Investigations, (6%) also concluded that
low initial internal tenperatures were correlated with increased
cooking weight losses.

Fosdick, of Armour and Counany in Chicago, (39) mentioned that
the weight loss incurred during the defrosting of meat was only 1 to
7 per cent of the total weight. When meat was cooked from the frozen
stage without defrosting, the cooking weight loss was reported to be
2 to 3 per cent higher than 10? similar cuts cooked after they had
been defrosted. The total loss was approximately the same whether
'Lhe meat was thawed before cooking or cooked in a frozen state.

Lowe and co-workers (56) compared the effect of four methods
(rf'defrosting meats and of the manner and temperature of cooking upon
weight loss and palatability of the roasts. Frozen cuts of meat
always required a longer cooking time than comparable cuts which

were thawed. Lowe and co-workers‘ data for 1&1 groups of roast:

14

showed that the frozen cuts did not always have greater cooking weight
losses than the defrosted meat. In 31 of these groups the cooking
weight loss was greater for the roasts which were still frozen when
cooking was started. However, Opposite findings were reported for

the other 10 groups of roasts. The weight losses during cooking of
paired lamb leg roasts were practically the same for frozen and thawed
cuts. Lowe and co-workers stated that the frozen interior of the lamb

roast may have slowed the 103s of water from the interior of the roast.

Surface area

According to a number of studies (#7, 56), compact pieces of meat
with small surface areas have less cooking weight losses than pieces
which have irregular shapes and greater surface areas. Square or
blocky roasts, however, require longer cooking time per pound than
thin, flat roasts.

McCance and Shipp (59) observed that although the rate of 1085
was very different, the total percentage losses of water were the
same regardless of the size of the meat. They cooked pieces of top
round of beef, which weighedSO, #00. and 1500 grams each, at 100° C

111 steam.

Style of cutting

Child and Esteros (20) compared standing and boneless rolled rib

rOELsts cooked at an oven temperature of 1h9° C to an internal

 

 

terperature -
cent. higher
findings 01'
and Esteros
usually 105

both were <

Dumi

15

temperature of 58° C. They found the rolled roasts averaged 2.76 per
cent higher in total cooking veight losses than standing roasts. The
findings of Alexander and Clark (4) substantiated the results of Child
and Esteros. Lowe and co-workers (56) reported that boned roasts
usually lost more weight than similar roasts which were not boned when
both were cooked under the same conditions.

Dunnigan (38) found the style of cutting to be more significant
than grade in its effect on cooking weight losses. However. her
findings were the epaosite of the other studies reported. She cooked
U. S. Choice and U. S. Utility grade sirloin butts, with and without
bone, at a 150° C oven temperature to an internal temperature of 70° C-
The bone-in Choice sirloin butts showed a total cooking weight loss
of 20.05 per cent; the cooking weight loss for a similar cut, boneless
was 12.63 per cent. The total cooking weight losses averaged 19.09

per cent for the boneless Utility grade sirloin butts and 25.79 per

cent for similar bone-in cuts of Utility grade in her study.

   

The vita;
because meat :

McIntire
cooking and t
meat. The; 1
roast and by
retention of
3E5: in ‘Cr'cis

in pork. CO'

 

L Necktie a
“Claire 9:
Vitamns '11
t0 the 812

Clark

 

Pressure S

-=.__'—
,

Caused a

fine: 1 1- V

16

Vitamin Losses of Meat during Cooking

The vitamin losses of meat during cooking deserve consideration
because meat is an important source of the B - vitamins.

McIntire and co—workers (60) found that both the method of
cooking and the size of the cut affect the retention of vitamins in
meat. They reported an average thiamine retention of 70 per cent in
roast and broiled pork and 50 per cent in braised pork; the average
retention of nicotinic acid in roast and broiled pork was 85 per cent
and in braised pork, 65 per cent. The average riboflavin retention
in pork, cooked by any of the three methods, was 85 per cent. Ap-
preciable amounts of each of the vitamins were found in the drippings.
McIntire and co—workers (60) decided that the small percentage of
vitamins in the drippings from roast loins and hams was attributable
to the size of the roast and the small surface area exposed.

Clark and Van.Duyne (23) studied the effect of roasting and
pressure saucepan cooking upon the thiamine and riboflavin content
of beef roasts. They discovered that the roasts cooked in pressure
sauce pans retained more thiamine and less riboflavin than similar
cuts of meat roasted in the oven. On the basis of total percentage
retentions, the difference in thiamine was not sigificant. However,
the decrease in riboflavin content was significant.

Research by Waisman and Elvehjem (91) showed that roasting
cannsed appreciable destruction of thiamine in.meat. The results of

their vitamin assays indicated that there is increased destruction of

1?

thiamine and riboflavin with the prolonged roasting of meat. Cover
and co-workers (30) reported that the retentions of thiamine and
pantothenic acid were significantly lower in well done than in rare
beef roasts.

Jackson and co—workers (52) observed that the retention of
thiamine, riboflavin, and niacin in pork decreased with increased
cooking when the meat was roasted or fried. They cooked pork cuts
to three degrees of doneness: ”correctly cooked“, under—cooked, and

over—cooked.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Research

   
  

neat. These 1
differences. 1
temperature of
temperature to
flavor, agree!

factors to be

Arena and £15

Because
has universe

Beat 8W2; Q :

regard as f‘

18

Palatability Factors

Research has shown that many factors affect the palatability of
meat. These include the carcass grade, animal variations, muscle
differences. length and temperature of frozen storage, length and
temperature of ripening period, oven temperature, and the internal
temperature to which meat is cooked. Score sheets usually list aroma,
flavor, appearance, texture, tenderness, and Juiciness as palatability

factors to be considered in Judging cooked meats.

Aroma and flavor

Because of its aroma and flavor, a properly cooked piece of meat
has universal appetite appeal. Zeigler (93) commented that cooked
meat surpasses all other foods in aroma. Bull (16) stated, “What we

regard as flavor is primarily aroma and secondarily taste.“

Cooking method and time. Cline and co-workers \26) reported
.from their experiments with 10 methods of roasting prime ribs of beef
a definite correlation between cooking losses and flavor of the lean.
A11 roasts which ranked low in cooking weight losses rated high in
peilatability. They suggested that the lose of flavor might be attri-
buted to the loss of Juice from the roasts.

The findings of Clark and Van.Duyne (23) indicated that more
PGdLatable meat was obtained when top rounds were cooked in the oven

thuxn.when similar roasts were cooked in the pressure sauce pan. They

 

 

 

 

 

 

W9C

me

if;

t1“.

19

reported that the Judges preferred the flavor of the lean and fat of
the meat roasted in the oven and considered the meat cooked in the
pressure sauce pan too dry.

According to Cline and co—workers (26), tender beef cuts cooked
in the oven with the addition of water had lower palatability scores
than comparable cuts cooked in the even by dry heat.

Aldrich (1) found that there was marked deterioration in odor and

flavor of beef rounds cooked an additional hour at 150° C after the

cuts had reached 90° C internal temperature.

Fat ggptent. From their study on the relation of degree of
finish in cattle to meat flavors, Branaman, Rankine, and Alexander
(13) found that the scores on intensity and desirability of flavor
of lean meat showed progressive improvement in the meat with increased
fat. The fat content of poultry meat has also been shown to be an
important factor in determining its flavor and Juiciness (57).

Lows (55) stated that the flavor of the fat accounts primarily
for differences in flavor of the different species, 1. e.,beef, lamb,
pork, chicken, or turkey.

Pork has been found to deteriorate more rapidly than beef or
lamb during freezer storage. Palmer and co-workers (67) reported that
this was attributable to the high fat content of most pork cuts and
to the larger amounts of unsaturated fatty acids in pork fat which
increase its susceptibility to development of rancidity. The results

(sf their experiments showed that the degree of unsaturation of fatty

EC‘

in

t}

 

 

I. .IIBIIi. ‘

. a
:omrhV-k In. ALH‘

 

20

acids involved had a pronounced influence on the develOpment of rancidity
in ground pork. The iodine values were determined to indicate the de-
gree of unsaturation in the fat. Rancidity was measured by subjective
evaluation of flavor and by peroxide values. It has been established
that with an increase in the pr0portion of unsaturated fatty acids,

pork fat becomes softer and is more susceptible to rancidity.

Hiner, Gaddis, and Bankins (#9) found that the deterioration in
the palatability of beef, pork, and lamb at freezer storage between
-7.78° and -l7.8o C was due primarily to the oxidation of fat. This
was supported by their observation that the greatest change in the fat
was an increase in the peroxide value. Hiner and co-workers (#9) also
added that the desirability of the flavor of the fat was the best

subjective index among the palatability factors studied.

Storage gonditions. The effect of storage conditions on the
palatability of beef was studied by Griswold and Wharton (b3). They
presented evidence that meat stored 37 days at 34° F had a slightly
stronger aroma and flavor than meat stored 9 days at the same tempera-
ture. Experiments with storage conditions plus ultra-violet lights
were also conducted. The investigators noted that meat held at 600 F
for #8 hours with ultra-violet lights was more desirable in.appearance
and odor than meat held under similar conditions without ultraaviolet
lights. The growth of bacteria in meats was decreased by ultra-violet
irradiation.

Paul, Lowe, and McClurg (69), from their investigation on the

changes in beef induced by storage, observed that the greatest increase

in

 

01

 

21

in palatability of small cuts was obtained with a 9-day storage period
at 1.70 C. lurther storage resulted in decreased desirability of the
aroma and flavor scores and the develoPment of "gaminess'I in the lean

and rancidity of the fat.

Diet 2; animal. Barbella. Hankins, and Alexander (6) studied the

 

influence of retarded growth in lambs on flavor and other characteris-
tics of the meet. They reported that meat from lambs fed a well-
balanced ration was more desirable in flavor than meat from lambs given
only roughage.

Garrick and Range (17) were among the first to report that cod
liver oil. fed in sufficient quantity to chickens. imparts a "fishy'l
taste to the flesh of chickens. They observed that cooked meat from
chickens fed diets containing 2 per cent of cod liver oil up to the
time of slaughter showed no unusual taste when the meat was served
warm. However, a "fishy" taste was noted when the chicken was served
cold. According to Marble and co-workers (61). only 1 per cent of a
poultry grade cod liver oil in the diet of turkeys produced an off
flavor and odor in turkey meat.

It has been established that the firmness of pork fat is largely
dependent upon the amount of unsaturated fatty acids in the fat tissue.
Carbohydrate feeds produce firm fat; whereas feeds with high oil
content such as soybeans and peanuts produce soft and oily pork.

Brady and co-workers (12) showed that both the quantity of soybeans

and the length of time it is fed to hogs affect the degree of firmness

 

 

 

if g

s v .

 

port

M M
:3 ‘1“.

’31

Ln

22

of the pork fat. The Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station (48) re-

 

ported a commercial feed for hogs which was very effective for the
production of soft pork. There is a demand for soft pork by a segment

of the pepulation in Hawaii.

Freezing andpgggp. In the study by Palmer and co-workers (67),
cited previously, deterioration of pork during freezer storage was
reported. Ground pork was stored for periods of 3, 6, and 9 months at
—18° C and ~12° C. Ground pork was also stored with fluctuating tem-
peratures of -12° C one week and -18° C the following week. These 1

storage temperatures were alternated at weekly intervals for periods

 

of 3, 6, and 9 months. Pork chops were stored for periods of 3. 6.
9, and 12 months at -lB° C. Pork roasts were stored for 6 and 12
months at -18° C. Palmer and co-workers reported that deterioration
of pork in storage was progressive and became more pronounced with
time under all storage conditions. Palatability scores were highest
for those samples of ground pork, prepared from firm carcasses, which
had been wrapped in superior packaging materials and stored at -18° C.
Meat packaged in waxed paper had more than five times greater dehy-
dration 103s than that packaged in laminated paper. A severe freezer
burn was noted on the cuts wrapped with waxed paper.

Hiner. Gaddis. and Hankins (49) compared the effect of different
methods of protection on the palatability of freezer-stored meats.
They observed that desiccation of exposed frozen meat was retarded by

a high fat content and by a low storage temperature of ~17.8° C-

Cell

fro:

‘ .
;O:I

fr:

 

Hit

RU

 

2.3

Cellophane and lard-coating were equally satisfactory in protecting
frozen cuts from moisture lass. Vacuum packing resulted in no moisture
loss. They reported that more desiccation occurred in the exposed
frozen meat than in cellophane wrapped meats or in cuts that were coated
with lard. The develoPment of undesirable flavor was not attributable
to fat oxidation alone but appeared to be related to moisture loss.
also. Cellophane wrapping and lard dipping gave a small amount of pro-
tection against oxidation. The original quality of meat declined
rapidly in all types of protection studied except vacuum packing.

In their study concerning the effect of four different packaging
materials on frozen meats. Simpson and Chang (81) found that aluminum
foil and glassine-laminated paper was more effective than polyethylene—
coated paper or butcher wrap in retarding rancidity deveIOpment at

storage temperature of 0° F, —20° F, -30° F. and -40° F.

Appearance and texture

Crist and Seaton (31), from their experiments to determine the
reliability of organoleptic tests, reported that appearance ranked
first in importance according to the Judges‘ scores. Their results

Justified the familiar saying that peOple buy and eat with their eyes.

.Raw meat. From a study of the factors influencing the tenderness
and texture of beef. Brady (11) concluded that texture is dependent
upon the sins of the bundle of muscle fibers. He observed that meats

with finer texture consisted of larger bundles of muscle fibers. Shea

 

 

 

24

and co-workers (79)presented an improved technique for the induction
of marbling by mechanically introducing fat into the vascular systems
of beef. They found that the vascularly injected meat appeared well-

marbled but had a veal-like pallor.

.5333 3; animal. Paul and McClean (70) studied the effect of
varied internal temperatures on veal roasts from calves of three dif-
ferent weights. They found that the roasts from the large animals
gave the best results for texture. The Judges' scores for texture and
color showed that the extent of the variation induced by the increase
in internal temperature was less for roasts from large animals than

for the roasts from small animals.

Grade. According to Satorius and Child (77). the Judges' scores
showed no significant difference between medium and good grades in the

external appearance of longissimus dorsi and adductor muscles cooked

to 58° C at 150° C oven temperature. However. they reported a signi-
ficant difference was found between the two grades in the external
appearance of the raw muscles.

Day (35), from her study with the longissimus dorsi of beef from
U- 8. Good, U. S. Commerical, and U. S. Utility grades, reported that
the analysis of the taste panel scores indicated little difference

between grades in appearance and texture.

Cute and muscle . Satorius and Child (77) reported from their
3tUdy. cited previously, that the adductor muscle was graded lover

in texture than the longissimus dorsi muscle.

 

 

 

 

 

th

25

Cooking_time. In her study with beef rounds. Aldrich (1) found
that the average appearance scores for cuts of both Good and Choice
grades cooked the additional hour after they had reached 90° C internal
temperature were lower than the average scores for comparable cuts
cooked only to 90° C internal temperature. The cuts cooked the addi-
tional hour showed a marked darkening of large areas on the surface of
the sliced muscles. Large areas of the slices also became highly

iridescent after exposure to air.

Tenderness and shear force

Tenderness and flavor in meat are two qualities desired more than
any others, according to Deatherage and Rieman (36). They further
commented that meat which has good flavor is still undesirable if it
is tough. Factors which affect the tenderness of meat have been the

subject of many investigations.

Degge§.2£ internal temperature. By means of a modified New York
testing laboratory penetrometer, Noble. Halliday, and Klaus (65)
determined the tenderness of beef cooked to 61° and 75° C internal
temperature at an oven temperature of lh9° C. They concluded from the
penetrometer readings that toughening occurred during heating from
61° to 75° C. Paul and McClean (70) reported that with each rise in
internal temperature of the veal roasts. there was improved tenderness

according to the taste panel scores.

 

26

Oven temperature. Cover (29) cooked paired beef roasts to an
internal temperature of 80° C at oven temperatures of 125° C and 225°

C. She reported that well done round-bone chuck, rib, and rump roasts
were more tender when cooked at 1250 C than when cooked at 225° C-
However. she found no significant difference in tenderness of medium-
rare rib and chuck roasts of beef cooked at these two temperatures.
She reasoned that the difference in cooking time required by the dif-
ferent cuts may have had more influence on tenderness than did the
oven temperatures. Cover's data (28), from thetmudy of the use of
metal skewers in meat roasting, gave further support to the theory
that longer. slower cooking increases tenderness in meat and shorter.
faster cooking increases its toughness. The same investigator (2?)
then studied the effect of oven temperatures of 80° C and 125° C on
tenderness of beef. From the results of this experiment, Cover con-'
eluded that 80° C oven temperature was not desirable for roasting meats.
Although roasts cooked at this low temperature were more tender, the
meat was dry, mealy, and flavorless.

Cline and co-workers (26), from investigations based on different
methods of cooking and their effect on the quality and palatability
of beef. concluded from the Judges' scores that low even temperatures
were correlated with increased tenderness. Latzke (5“) also reported
that cooking meat at low even temperatures resulted in more tender
roasts than cooking meats at high even temperatures. Child and
Satorius (22) cooked semitendinosus and longissimus dorsi muscles of

beef to an internal temperature of 58° C at even temperatures 0f 125°.

 

 

2?

150°, 175°. and 2000 C. From their findings, it appeared that only at
the Very extreme ends of the oven temperature range was the shear force
of the roasts affected. A significantly greater number of pounds of
force was required to shear the ribs roasted at 200° C than to shear
meat cooked at 150° C. Fewer pounds of force were required to shear

-meat cooked at 125° C oven temperature than meat cooked at 150° C.

Cooking. Ramsbottom, Strandine, and Koonz (76), from their study
with representative beef muscles. observed that most muscles were made
less tender by cooking, some did not change significantly. and other
muscles became more tender. They concluded that since connective and
fatty tissues were made more tender by cooking, the decreased tender-
ness of certain cooked muscles might be associated with factors such
as coagulation and denaturation of muscle proteins together with varying
degrees of shrinkage and hardening of the muscle fibers.

Bard and Tischer (7) studied the changes in beef shoulder clod
of Canner and Cutter grades during heat processing. They found that
the tenderness of beef. measured by the pounds of force reQuired to
shear the meat, decreased as the temperature of processing was raised

from 225° to 255° F.

,/
//

Digt‘gg animal. Black, Warner and Wilson (9) studied the effect
of grade and feeding of grain supplement to steers on the quality of
beef. They found from the Judges' scores and mechanical shear tests

that the meat from steers fed the grain supplement was more tender

 

 

28

than the meat from steers fed only on grass. Barbella, Rankine, and
Alexander (6) also noted that meat from well-fed lambs was more tender

than meat from poorly fed animals.

£52. sex, and grade. The observations of MacKintosh and co-workers
(58) indicated that meat from mature steers was less tender than that
from yearling cattle. From their experiments. Satorius and Child (7?)
concluded that meat from steers was more tender than that from cows.

Lowe and co—workers (56) cempared the effect on palatability of
three grades of prime ribs of beef which had been stored at ~17.8° C
temperature. They cooked 35 prime ribs at oven temperatures of 120°C,
1500 C, and 175° C to internal temperatures of 58° C and 75° C.
According to the palatability scores, tenderness was influenced by the
carcass grade. These investigators reported that roasts from Commercial
grade carcasses had lower tenderness scores than those from Choice and

Good grade carcasses.

Animal agg,mg§glg.zazia§ioga. In their study, previously cited,

Noble. Halliday, and Klaas (65) found that the differences between
tenderness averages for corresponding left and right wholesale rib
cuts were very small when the cuts were cooked in the same manner.
They also observed that the rib cuts were one and one-half times more
tender than the first round cuts from the same animal.

According to Ramsbottom and Strandine (75), the individual muscles

within a carcass varied markedly in tenderness. They reported that the

 

 

 

29

longissimus dorsi (eye muscle) and the psoas major (tenderloin) averaged
higher in tenderness than any other muscles with the exception of the
internal oblique (the cut surface between the sirloin and the short loin).
From the studies by Lowe and co-workers (56). it appeared that
tenderness was the palatability factor most often affected by animal

and muscle variations.

Iggigg and ripening. Aging and ripening appear to have a marked
influence on the tenderness of beef. Deatherage and Rieman (36) stated
that meat may be tenderized during ripening by hanging at refrigerator
temperatures of 0,6 to 1.10 C for periods of time varying from 3 to 6
weeks. The disadvantages of this method, they mentioned, were the
danger of the development of off-flavors. the high losses due to
shrinkage and trimming, and the high cost of storage. The Tenderay
process was developed to circumvent these difficulties. Deatherage
and Rieman (36) reported the results of experiments with the Tenderay
Process on 82 beef carcasses. The U. S. Commercial carcasses showed
slightly greater improvement than did those of U.S.Good. For the
whole group, Tenderayed beef scored 2.5 points higher in tenderness

than the uunprocessed meat from a possible total score of 10 points.

Freezing. The effect of different freezing temperatures on the
tenderness of beef steaks was studied by Hankins and Hiner (#5). Their
results showed that the control steaks stored at 3&0 F had higher

shear readings and were less tender than meats frozen at {20° F. ~10o F.

30

and .40° F. Storage temperatures of -1o° r and -4o° r had significantly
greater tenderizing effect than the storage temperature of {20° F. No
significant difference was found between meats frozen at the two lowest
temperatures, -10° F and -QO° F.

Paul and Child (68) reported that there was no significant dif-
ference in the tenderness of meat which was not frozen and meat which
was frozen at -0.4° 1. According to Ramsbottom (73), freezer storage
at - 10° I or lower for seven years did not significantly change the
tenderness of beef steaks.

Dahlinger (33) compared the tenderness of beef rounds which were
precooked and frozen with similar cuts which were freshly frozen and
then roasted the day they were served. All cuts were stored for 25
days at -lO° I. According to the analysis of the shear force averages.
the roasts which were freshly frozen.and then cooked were significantly
more tender than comparable cuts which were precooked and then frozen.
The taste panel scores indicated a preference for roasts which were
precooked and frozen, but the differences were not statistically

significant.

Juiciness and press fluid

Latzke (54). from her studies in standardizing methods of roasting
beef in experimental cookery, commented that the quality and palatability
0f a roast are largely determined by Juiciness. This factor can be
‘Bafinrod to some extent by the amount of cooking losses in meat. Studies
(26.70) have shown that there is correlation between Juiciness and

cooking weight losses.

31

Daggee‘gf internal terperature. According to Child and Fogsrty

(21), semitendinosus beef muscles cooked to 58° C internal temperature

at 150° C oven temperature contained approximately 11 per cent more
press fluid than similar muscles cooked to 75° C. They also observed
than an inverse relationship existed between the percentage of press
fluid and the total cooking losses in muscles heated to 75° C. No.
relationship was observed between the percentage of press fluid and the
total cooking losses in muscles heated to 58° C.

From their experiments on beef ribs and rounds cooked at lu9oc,
Noble and co-workers (65) reported that the ribs cooked to 610 c yielded
more Juice than those heated to 750 C when samples were subjected to a

pressure of 390 pounds per square inch.

Eéperior temperature. Child and Satorius (22) reported that oven
temperature. of 175°, 150°, 175°, and 200° 0 did not affect the press
fluid of beef muscles cooked to an internal temperature of 58° C. From
the studies of Cline and co-workers (26), it appeared that high oven
temperatures decreased the Juiciness of roasts. They cooked beef at
oven temperatures of 110°, 163°. 191°, 218°, and 260° C to an internal
temperature of 57° C.

Siemers and Banning (80) studied the effect of temperature,
length of cooking, and fat content on the Juiciness of meat. To
simulate the bruising of meat. they cooked blended samples of
lean beef and suet in closed greduatedcentrifugal tubes. The tem-

peratures used were 70°, 80°, 90°, and 98° C. Cooking periods were 5,

32

lO, 20, and 30 minutes. The increased temperature of braising and

length of cookirg time significantly increased the loss of juice.

Effect 2; £2£_§pd bonine. Child and Esteros (20) used the
pressometer to determine the amount of press fluid in samples of stand-
ing and rolled rib roasts of beef. They concluded that the standing
rib roasts had a larger quantity of juice than the corresponding rolled
roasts. There was also a slight tendency for the standing roasts to
have a richer quality of Juice than the rolled roasts according to the
Judges' scores. Noble. Halliday, and Klaas (65) observed that the
rounds yielded more Juice than the standing rib roasts when both meats

0
were cooked to 61° C at an oven tenperature of lb? C.

Method 2; cooking. .According to Harrison (46). the judges found
no significant differences in Juiciness of meats cooked in air, steam,
water, or fat. There was no significant difference in the amount of
press fluid at the center of the roasts attributable to cooking mediums;
but there was a highly significant difference in the amount of press
fluid from samples one-half inch below the surface of the roasts
which was attributable to different cooking mediums. Meats cooked in
air hbd tine most press fluid. When fat, water, or steam was used as
the cooking medium, less press fluid was found in the meat. The cuts

cooked in steam contained the smallest amount of press fluid.

QI§Q_. Veil and O'Neill (89) reported that results of their
Press fluid tests with cooked rolled rib, tOp round. and clod cuts

were unexpected. The cuts from U. S. Choice grade yielded appreciably

33

less press fluid than did the cuts from U. S. Good grade. However, the

palatability scores showed the roasts prepared from U. S. Choice grade

to be higher in juiciness than similar cuts from U. S. Good grade.
According to Aldrich (l), the amounts of press fluid found in U.

S. Choice rounds was slightly higher than that found in U. S. Good

rounds. Day (35), from her experiments with the longissimus dorsi of

three grades of beef, concluded that there was little difference in

average scores for juiciness of U. 5. Utility, U. 8. Commercial, and

U. S. Good grade cuts. She reported a positive correlation, significant

at the 5 per cent probability level, between press fluid tests and

juiciness scores.

Method pf cooking. Freeman (40) reported that the pressurecooked
pot roasts yielded significantly greater amount of press fluid than

pot roasts cooked by the conventional method.

Methods of Evaluating Palatability of Meats

Subjective method

Subjective methods of scoring food depend upon the sensory organs.
These tests are subjective because the qualitative and quantitative
aspects of the characteristics under study are based on the Opinions
of’the Judges. Lowe and Stewart (57) commented that these tests are
inherently associated with acceptability, since a large part of the
acceptability of food is related to sensory perception. The problems

involved in the subjective method of testing are discussed by several

 

investigators (10. 51. 66). Boggs and Hanson (10) have observed that
each judge tends to weigh the various factors by his own standards.
The psychological and physiological factors h've also been shown to
influence the judges' scoring (32.57).

Lowe and Stewart (57) stated that there is much confusion among
food research workers regarding the use of subjective tests. Some
investigators consider all subjective tests, only in terms of preference.
According to Lowe and Stewart (57). this is not necessarily valid.
They classify subjective tests into two categories: preference or
acceptance tests and difference or psychometric tests.

The triangle test, based on three samples two of which are
duplicates. has been widely used. The taste panel is asked to select
the odd sample. This test determines whether the difference between
the duplicates and the odd sample is great enough to be detected by
the panel members. Davis and Hanson (34) stated that considerable
information is lost in the use of the triangle test if intensity design-
ation is not made or if it is utilized only for those judgments in
which the odd sample is correct. They presented a new method of
evaluating the results of three sample tests in which designation of
intensity is required. All judgments are evaluated in terms of an
I-value which is directly related to the probability of chance occur—
rence of the judgment. The inclusion of partially correct judgments
provides for increased efficiency by reducing the number of trials

necessary to detect a difference at a given level of significance.

 

 

 

35

There have been extensive studies to discover the best methods for
the treatment of food products in order to give them good quality. The
need for technical criteria and a flavor standard to determine the final
quality of these products is generally recognized. Sjostrom and Cairn-
cross (82) presented the flavor—profile method, a descriptive rather
than a measuring device. for testing food products. According to this
concept. flavor consists of a number of indistinguishable components
which combine to produce a blend of few recognizable flavors. These
components give a product character and individuality. Each member
of the taste panel records the intensity of detectable flavor notes
in the order of their appearance.

An Acceptance Testing Methodology Symposium was held in 1953 at
Chicago under the joint sponsorhsip of the National Research Council
and the Qmarternaster Food and Container Institute. Proceedings of
this conference have not yet been published. However, according to
a recent abstract (72) of the symposium, some new concepts were
introduced.

Dr. H. Schlosberg, Brown University. reported that apparently the
best or only way to obtain more stable and sensitive measurements of
responses is to increase panel size. His conclusion was based on.an
extensive study of the problem of selecting and training panels. When
panel members had immediate knowledge of the results of their efforts,,
the performance of scoring appeared to improve. Dr. Carl Pfaffmann.
also of Brown University. attributed this inprovement to the increased

interest of the panel members. Dr. L. L. Thurstone. Psychometric

36

Laboratory, University of North Carolina, presented evidence that a
”rational zero point" can be established. This is the point at which
the individual neither likesnor dislike! the food.

Research workers continue to depend upon the judgment of taste
panels for quality scoring. Overman and Li (66) emphasized the need
for comparing the reliability of the judgments of the taste panel
members. They suggested a method for measuring the consistency and
discriminating ability of each member of the taste panel. Even with
its shortcomings, the subjective method is considered an important

method in determining palatability.

Objective method

Halliday (4#) stated that subjective tests with their carefully
planned score cards have their value but indicated that they should
not be used as the sole criteria. Objective tests can be reproduced
and are more applicable to the needs of the control laboratory (57).

In 1934. Child and Baldelli (19) discussed the deve10pment of
a method for objective evaluation of juiciness in meats. Techniques
for use of the pressometer to analyze press fluid content in meats
were presented. Studies (20,35) have shown that there is correlation
between pressometer readings and juiciness scores by the judging
committee. A method for mechanical determination of juiciness in
meats by means of a hydraulic press was described by Tanner. Clark.
and Rankine (87). However. their findings showed no close correlation

between results obtained by the hydraulic press method and the

 

37

results of the taste panel scores for juiciness of beef cooked to 58°
C internal temperature.

A number of mechanical devices for measuring the tenderness of
meats have been invented. hratller (14) studied the Warner shearing
machine and standardized the size and shape of the opening and the
type of cutting edge. The WarnerbBratzler shearing apparatus has been
widely used for tenderness determinations. A high degree of correla-
tion between taste panel scores for tenderness and shear force readings
has been established by several investigators (l, 9, 78). The pene-
trometer has also been used to measure the tenderness of meat and
other products. Other methods have been devised to determine the
tenderness of meats by chemical analysis.

The shortometer for testing tenderness of baked products and the
Munsell system of rotation to study the preservation of green color in
cooked vegetables are further examples of objective testing for foods.
These objective tests show that the research worker is not entirely
dependent upon subjective tests for evaluating the quality of cooked

food.

Objective and subjective methods

Although numerous methods have been tried in the laboratory,
the type of test most widely applicable to all foods of all classes
is the subjective-objective approach. Dove (37) commented, ”The use

of these two terms in combination now becomes necessary since the

38

trend in research has been to depend solely upon the objective approachF.
He added that the subjective-objective approach is the first step to

be taken in reorientation before food acceptance tests can be developed.
Lowe and Stewart (57) stated that the objective tests for organoleptic
qualities must measure those characteristics which are correlated with
acceptability. Halliday (44) also recommended the use of combined
methods of subjective and objective approaches in food testing. Examples
of the combined uses of these methods are shown by the work done on

tenderness and juiciness by various investigators.

Cost of Edible Portion

In 1917, Van Arsdale and Monroe (90) commented on the importance
to the housewives of distinguishing between.the original cost of the
meat and its actual cest after elimination of waste and loss in cooking.
Their eXperiments included steaks, chops, fowl, and the commonly
called "cheaper" cuts of meat. They gave the cost per pound as pur—
chased for pot roast of beef as $ 0.26 and cost per pound of edible
portion as $ 0.b;5. Fuel cost of $ 0.02 was included in the final cost.
Cline and Nesbitt (2:), in 1936, conducted experiments on cooking
losses and yields of prime ribs. chucks, top rounds, and heels of
rounds cooked to three stages of doneness. Yields were based on the
number of 100 gram servings obtainable from a pound of uncooked meat.
Portion costs of meats at the well done stage, including the cost of
gas for cooking, were heel of round $ 0.062, chuck $ 0.067,prime ribs

$ 0.089, and top round $ 0.106.

 

39

Factors which affect the palatability and cost of roast beef
served in institutions were studied by Vail and O'Neill in 1937 (89).
They cooked rolled rib roasts, top round, and clod at a constant oven
temperature of 149° C to an internal tenperature of 68° C. A summary
of their results showed that the cost of a 70 gram cooked portion from
ribs was about 180 per cent greater than a similar serving from either
the round or clod, regardless of grade. They concluded that if cost
is important, the top clod of U. 8. Prime, U. 5. Choice, or U. S.

Good should be served because of the great difference in cost and
slight difference in palatability as compared with similar data for
rib roasts.

According to the results reported by Dunnigan (38), in 1943, the
cost per pound of edible cooked meat for the U. S. Choice bone-in
sirloin butts was $ 0.531 and for boneless roasts, $0.419. For
similar cuts of U. 8. Utility grade, the cost per pound of edible
cooked meat were $ 0.526 and $0.352, respectively. Brown (15), in
1948, compared the losses of the cuts attributable to oven roasting
and slicing. She reported a 7 per cent increase in the yield but a
15 per cent increase in the price of rounds over chucks. She concluded
from her results that the chuck cuts appeared to be more economical
than the cuts from the round when cooked under the conditions and at
the prices mentioned in the study.

From her research on the effect of the extent of cooking for the
muscles of beef rounds. Aldrich (l), in 1951. reported that the edible

portion cost showed an increase of 5.04 per cent for U. S. Choice

 

40

grade during the additional hour of cooking after the internal tempera—
turebad reached 90° C. She found the cost per 2.5 ounce portion of
edible meat for U. S. Choice rounds cooked to 900 C to be 30-2343 and
for U. S. Good $0.2229. After the additional hour of cooking the
edible portion cost for U. S. Choice rounds was $0.246l and U. S. Good
grade, $0.2u06.

Day (35), in 1953, reported the cost for 2.5 ounces of cooked
portion of the longissimus dorsi of beef to be $ 0.5644 for U. S.
Good, $ o.uu75 for U. 3. Commercial, and $ 0.3288 for U. 5. Utility

grade. -

 

 

 

01

METHOD OF PROCEDURE
Preparation of Cuts
Dissection of carcass

Three sides of beef carcasses of each grade, Choice, Good, and
Cormercial, were purchased from Armour and Company in Chicago. The
storage period for the sides of beef varied from 2 to 7 days from
delivery to cutting date. During this period, the meat was held at 1.70
C. After storage, the half carcasses were cut into quartersbetween the
twelfth and thirteenth ribs. The Iorequarter and hinuquarter were
divided into wholesale cuts. Each wholesale cut was then UlViQed,
boned, and trimned into retail cuts. The percentage gields of the
edible meat, bone, and fat were determined. The edible meat was

divided into tender cuts for dry roasting and less tender cuts suitable

for pot roasts, stew meat, and ground beef.
Division into oven-ready cuts

For this study, oven-ready roasts were prepared from the ribs,
sirloin, short loin, and round. The boned rib was rolled and tied
and divided into three cuts of about equal size. The tenderloin was
removed from th sirloin and the retaining sirloin butt was divided
into two roasts. The tenderloin was renoved from the short loin and
the strip loin was left whole for roasting. From the round, the top

round was reroved and divided into three roasts. The center portion

 

 

#2

was the largest of the three oven-ready roasts from the top round.

The beef cuts used in this study are identified in Figure 1.
Freezing and storage of cuts

The oven-ready roasts were individually wrapped with freezer
paper, tied securely, and lsheled. The cuts were frozen at -12.20 C
and were stored at the sane temperature until defrosting just prior
to cooking. The length of storage for the frozen cuts varied from

11 to 13 weeks.

Cooking of Cuts

Defrosting of cuts

The frozen cuts were unwrapped and weighed on a Torsion balance.
They were defrosted in a refrigerator at 50 C for “0 to 55 hours, de-
pending upon the size and weight of the cut, to an internal temperature
0f approximately 0° C-

The defrosted cuts were weighed again Just prior to roasting. A
thermometer was placed so that the bulb would be as near the center of
the cut as possible. Each out, with the exception of the strip loin,
was placed on a trivet in a 9 x 14 inch aluminum pan for cooking.

The strip loin was placed on a trivet in a 11 x 18 inch pen of 18

gauge stainless steel.

TOP ROUND

SIRLOIN BUTT

 

STRIP LOIN

 

ROLLED RIB

 

 

Posterior

 

Anterior

 

Posterior

Anterior

Posterior

—‘-
v..-
-—

Middle __ __

fl
'-
--

Anterior

 

 

Figure 1. Beef Chart idei‘itifging tender cuts used in

s t ud y .

Roasting process

The meat was cooked in thermostatically controlled Hot Point
Electric ovens, built with open fire-brick bottoms. A Precision oven
thermometer was used to double check the oven temperature. Each cut
was cooked without a cover at a constant oven temperature of 1500 C.
The roasts were weighed during the cooking period at the following
specified internal terperatures: 500 C, 60° C, 70° C, 80° C, and
90° C. Four cuts were roasted simultaneously, two cuts in each of the
two ovens.

Tezperatures of the roasts were recorded at 15 minute intervals
until the internal tenperature of the roasts neared 50° C. The
temperatures were then checked every 3 to 5 minutes. The oven tempera-
tures were checked at 30 minute intervals. Since the oven doors were
not equipped with glass windows, it was necessary to open the doors to
check the temperatures of the roasts.

When each roast reached 50° C internal terperature, it was re-
moved from the oven. The cooked roast and the drippings were weighed
and recorded. The roast was then placed in the original pan and re—
turned to the oven. A stOp watch was used to determine the number of
xninutes the roast remained out of the oven 50 that total cooking time'
could be figured. The internal to perature of the meat was again
recorded at 15 minute intervals until it neared the next specified -
iJiternal tenperature and was then checked at 3 to 5 minute intervals.

iFor the 10 degree rise between 70° and 80° C and between 80° and 90° C,

45

the internal terperatures were checked at 20 minute intervals. The
roasts were removed from the oven at 60° C, 70° C, 80° C, and 900 C and
the same procedure was followed as described for the roast at 50° C
internal temperature.

Volatile 10sses were calculated by subtracting the sum of the
weight of the drippings and the cooked weight of each roast from the

defrosted weight of the rOast.
Preparation of Samples

The roasts were allowed to cool at room tenperature for approx-
imately 30 minutes, before samples were renoved for the taste panel
judges. It was necessary to slice the sanples from the larger roasts
shortly after their reroval from the oven because of the complication
of extremely long cooking periods which delayed setting up samples.
In preparing the samples for scoring, a layer of cooked meat about
1.0 to 1.5 inches thick, was reroed from the outside of the cooked
roasts. The muscles were then separated, and a cut was made with a
sharp knife across the grain to produce a straight edge for machine
slicing. Another cut, parallel to the first, was made 2.5 inches
from the trimmed edge. A cylinder was removed from the 2.5 inch
;portion of roast for the shear force tests and the remainder was sliced

into samples for palatability scoring by the taste panel.

Sanufles for shear force readings
From the center of the 2.5 inch section of roast, a sample was

Obtained for testing tenderness on the Warner-Bratzler shear apparatus.

 

M6

Occasionally, it was necessary to obtain a sample from nearer the
edge to avoid visible strips of connective tissue. This sample was
cut parallel with the direction of the muscle fibers. A one-inch
metal core with a sharp edge was used with a gentle, rotating motion
along the grain of the meat. The samples were placed in individual
polyethylene bags and stored overnight. Shear tests were run the

following morning.
Samples for palatability scoring

After the cylinders had been removed from the 2.5 inch portion
of roast, samples for scoring were cut from this section with a
General Slicing Machine, Model 225. These slices were approximately
0.25 inch thick. Each judge was identified by letter and received
a sample of meat in the same order of slicing for all tests. On a
few occasions, it was necessary to freeze some samples in polyethylene
bags because the Judges were unable to be presen for the scoring at
the regular time. As soon as was practicable, these slices were

thawed at room temperature for an hour and then were scored.

Tests and Records

Shear force tests

Tenderness was objectively measured on the Warner-Bratzler shear
Inachine. This shearing apparatus measures the pounds of force required

for the blade to cut through a sample of meat one-half or one inch in

 

47

diameter. Five tests were made on a one-inch cylinder from each

roast.

Subjective tests

Each of seven judges scored a sample from each roast. The
rating was based on a scale ranging from 0 to 10 for aroma, ilavor,
appearance, texture, tenderness, and juiciness. The score sheets
also included descriptive terms for each palatability factor to be
checked by the taste panel members. A copy of the score card may be

found in the Appendix.

Cost for edible portion

The cost per pound of the individual uncooked, oven-ready cuts
from each side of beef was based on the tota purchase value of the
half carcass, the weights of edible meat from each animal, and on
cost factors which were assigned arbitrarily. The cost per pound
of ground beef was assigned a value of X, stew meat 1.28 X, pot
roasts 1.h4 I, and dry roasts 1.67 X, based on the relative value
of each of the four classifications on the market at the time of
this study.

The following steps illustrate the manner in which the price
jper pound of the individual uncooked, ovenrready cuts from each

half carcass was computed.

#8

The weights of edible meat of each classification obtained
from animal A of Commercial grade were tabulated as shown

in Table l.

The total weights of ground beef, stew meats, oot roasts,

and dry roasts of animal A were multiplied by their

respective factors.

41.125 x x = 41.125 x
85.375 x 1.23 x = 109.28 x
26.5 x 1.44 x = 38.160 x
67.875 x 1.67 x = 113.35125x

Total 301.91625X

The cost per pound of ground beef or the X value for
animal A was calculated by dividing the total purchase
value of the half carcass ($ 95.0Q) by the total of the
four products obtained in step 2 ( 301.91625 X).
The costs per pound of stew meat, pot roasts. and dry
roasts for animal A were calculated by multiplying the
respective factors by the cost of ground beef per pound.

Ground beef: X . $ 0.31&8

Stew meat: 1.28 x 0.3lh8 a 0.4029

Pot roasts: 1.44 x O.31#8 a 0.4532

Dry roasts: 1.67 1 0.3148 a 0.5257

 

49

Table 1. Distribution of weight of edible meat from animal A
of Commercial grade.

 

 

 

‘Ground' ‘Stew Pct 1537—
Wholesale Cut Beef Meat Roasts Roasts
-‘* lbs. lbs. lbs. lbs.
Round 13.25 26.5 17.75
Loin end 1.0 I 19-75
Flank 7.75
Short loin 7.25 11.25
Rib 1.5 19.125
Plate 1.5 13.25
Chuck 1.75 65.50
Shank 7.625 6.625
Total 41.125 85.375 26.5 67.875

 

The average cost per pound of the individual uncooked, oven-ready
cuts from each of the three grades was figured by dividing the total
raw weight cost of the ovenoready cuts from the three sides of each
grade by the total weight of the oven-ready cuts for that particular
grade. See Table 2. In this study, the average costs per pound of
the individual, uncooked ovenvready cuts do not include the labor
costs for cutting and handling the meat or the storage cost.

The total cost, $ 95.0554, was divided by the total weight, 172

,pounds 9 ounces, to obtain the average cost per pound of all cuts to

50

be used for roasting from the three carcasses. The average cost per
pound of uncooked roasts from three Commercial grade carcasses was

$ 0.5508. The average costs per pound of uncooked roasts from three
Good and three Choice grade Carcasses, calculated as previously des-
cribed, were $ 0.6599 and $ 0.7161, respectively.

Table 2. Weight and cost of oven-ready cuts from three
animals of Commercial grade.

 

 

 

 

Animal Cut Weight Cost/1b. Total Cost
lbs. oz.

A: Sirloin butt 1? 35 0.5257 is 8.9369
Top round 17 12 0-5257 9-3331

Strip loin 9 0-5357 “-7313

Rolled rib 19 2 0.5257 10.0540

B: Sirloin butt 1? 0.5567 9.4639
Tap round 14 8 0.5567 8.0721

Strip loin 8 12 0.5567 4.5232

Rolled rib 16 13 0.5567 9.3595

C: Sirloin butt 16 3 0.5743 9.2965
Top round 14 10 0.5743 8.3991

Strip loin 7 11 0.5743 4.4149

Rolled rib 14 12 0.5743 8.4709

Total 172 9 $910554

 

The average cost per pound of the individual cooked roasts for

each of the three grades at specified internal temperatures was

found by dividing the raw weight cost of the roast by the cooked weight.
The average portion cost of the cooked roasts was based on 2.5-

10unce portions. Since the strip loin had an extremely large amount

Of fat covering, the average portion cost of this roast was based on

4-ounce‘portions.

51

RESULTS AhD DISCUSSION
Cooking Weight Losses
Total losses

The total cooking weight losses of all cuts showed an increase

with each rise in internal temperature, as was expected. Tables 3,

4, 5, and 6 list the average percentage total cooking weight losses

of the cuts from Commercial, Good, and Choice grade carcasses at
'nternal te peratures of 50° C, 600 C, 700 C, 800 C, and 90° C. Total
losses for each of the cuts from the three grades at the different
internal tenperntures may be found in the Appendix. There was no
significant difference in total losses attributable to grade at any

of the intern 1 te peratures. However, highly significant differences
were found among the cuts for all the grades.

The strip loin had consistently lower total cooking weight losses
at each of the internal tenperatures studied than any of the other
cuts. Differences'in total losses were significant at the 1 per cent
level of probability between the strip loin and all other cuts, with
the exception of the posterior round out at 500 C internal temperature.
The decreased total losses of strip loin were attributed to the pro-
tection from evao ration afforded by the greater quantity of external
fat and to the large proportion of exposed surface area to weight of
the roast, which considerably shortened the cooking period of the

strip loins. The total cooking weight losses of all cuts at each of

 

52

 

 

 

 

 

 

3.0m 0.5m 0.5m 0.5 0.5 5.0 ~.0m «.5m 3.0m monsooa
m.5m n.5m 0.0m 0.5 m.5 0.5 n.0e 0.3m n.3m soasopoom
0.5m o.mm 0.mm 0.0 m.5 m.0 H.oe .mm «.mm 05 soasopc<
~.0N :.mm 0.NN 0.0 5.0 0.0 5. m fi.om 0.mm omosooa
5.0N 5.0m 5.Hm 5.5 H.0 0.0 H.dm 0.0m m.5m soasopmom
0.5m o.0m 0.mm «.0 m.m 0.0 n.0m n.3m 5.0- om soasopua
3.0a 0.0a n.0a 0.0 3.0 0.: 5.Hm a.HN m.5a ooesopa
H.3H N.:H n.0H 0.0 a.m H.e H.5H 0.5a 2.5H soasoomom
0.0a 0.5a 3.0H 9.0 3.5 m.0 0.2m 3.3m 0.1m O5 noasopa<
m.oa H.0H 5.m 0.m :.m o.m m.ma 0.ma 5.NH onesopa
0.5 o.oH m.oH 5.N m.m 0.m m.ma N.NH 5.NH ooasopoom
o.aa m.oa m.m N.e 0.: m.m N.0H w.oa m.mH o0 soasooca
H.5 H.5 0.5 :.m m.m N.N 0.m 3.5 0.0 oaososa
m.5 0.5 3.5 N.m 0.H 5.H e.m H.a H.m soasoaoom
0.5 0.0 5.0 5.~ con 5.: 5.5 0.m :.m om soasooe<
oofiono coca .dfloo ooaono 0000 .ano mowono coca .5800 oo.mama ppfim afloahfim
mango conga ovnho Hmnhmch Mo coaunom
nemmoq maaadaop mommoa madnmakn moemoq Hopes
.wohdpnnomdop awakens“ definfionmm pm hoop mo modchm mega»
mo mummoa and» ofioaaflm ecnm wemwofi mcfixooo mo nonwouooaom omwao>4 .m mapoe

roasts of

three grades of beef at specified internal temperatures.

1
A

-

s from too rounc

Average percentages of cooking losse

Table 4.

 

Dripping Losses Volatile Losses

Total Losses

 

Grade Grade

Grade
Internal

Portion of
Top Round

 

Good Choice Comm. Good Choice Cor.. Good Choice

CO: in}.

°c

Temp.

 

42'de-
. O O 0
<2me

MQOB
\OGJURK)

Che-{HO
. O O O
P~UfCV\o

OC\J:.:)’
....
HHHH

OV\l\-:r.
fir-:HH

oeoo
NHHH

:rCfiChcd
r~c>w>d1

NF\(\.H
$000)

O\NO\\0
O\O\0\L\

50

Anterior
Middle
Posterior
Average

53

oxnxoao
O O O
r! —4

Hm:

9.8

\0300
NNN

1.

c-rvcx
OJFNOJ

1.2

Chm-3‘
o
HNN

2.6

C0\OCC’C'\
3mm
HH

60
13.

Anterior
Middle
Posterior
Aver 'e

\03 (\(X‘)
N MUNCW

O\C'\[\-C'\
. 0 0 .
mmmm

7O

Anterior
Middle
Posterior
Average

NKE:3.L\
“NWO“

HC'HDM
I O O O
(Whoa

HL'\l\-®
:1sz

29.9
36.1
30.4
32.0

36.1 38.1
27.5 32.3
33-0 33-6

80 36.2 30.7

Anterior
Middle
Posterior
Average

Nu?!) “W
. . . .
2mm:

r4C~a)U\
cxcvo.3

HO\ON
WOW-3'5"?

90

Anterior
Middle
Posterior
Average

 

54

 

 

:.:H :.0H H.0H 0.5 0.HH H.0 :.00 0.00 0.:0 05

0.5 0.5 0.5 5.: 0.0 5.0 0.:H 0.0H 5.0a 00

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 H.: 0.: 0.5 0.5H H.0H o5

0.: 0.: 5.0 5.0 0.0 H.0 5.0 H.5 0.0 00

H.N 5.H 0.0 :.N :.N 0.0 0.: 0.: 0.: o0
cowono 0000 .3600 000030 0000 .5500 oowono deco .aaoo cc .9509
Hashoch

conga sumac apnea

 

momwoa oHauoHo>

.pmmOH oawcfln a mo pouooo we: ado mama .
awakened dogmaoomm um moon mo monoum mean» we mumeoa
oaoa mauve aoaw nowmoa Mawxooo mo nomencooaom owmambd .m manna

mowmoa moaamfihq

menace Hopes

sensuouomgmp

Grade
Good Choice

Volatile Losses

Comm.

Good Choice

Dripping Losses
Grade

C Gill“ 0

Good Choice

Grade

Total Losses

Comm.

 

 

Internal

Average percentages of cooking losses from rolled rib roasts of
Temp. 0C

three grades of beef at specified internal temperatures.

Table 6.

 

 

Portion of
Rolled Rib

\OO\V\O
H(I)\OO\
H

V\H\Od’
Ox“: P~CD

NO\U\V.\
'1' \OQ'3

(\HCWM
NNNN

HFCWO
NHNN

OHNm
NNHH

Anterior
Middle
Posterior
Average

cxoacww>
«)010\01
Pd?! :1
Outta-3

I O 0 0

(‘\NHN
HHHH

(“\CDCDOx
O O O O

“MON
HH H

9"me
CNMMM

13200
e o .0
NNMM

D:NV\CD
N MNN

19.

15.
14.8 12.
15.4 15.8

8
'7
12.
15.

60

Anterior
Middle
Posterior
Average

22.6
17.4

22.0
19.2

(041.0100
(“-27.03

(\0 C'H'N
0:\U.\:r.:r.

28.2
23.0
18.6
23.2

25.9
23.6
22.0
23.8

Wmmmm

26.

“Ch?“

70

Anterior
Middle
Posterior
Average

7
n
0 8.0
24.1 22.4

8

5

1.
24.7

mmom
LISCXIOCD

(“WNW
\0(\O\C\

CDNCDO‘.‘
U\C\\O\O

36-3
30-7
27.0
31-3

33.8
32.2
29.6
31.8

HMO‘W

L? FWD-H
“MN

3

80

Anterior
Middle
Posterior
Average

43.8
39.0
35-0

40.7
39-5
36.9

40.4
39.
314‘.
38.0

90

Anterior
Middle
Posterior
Average

(\1
\O

(O

(‘J

(0
N

.0

10.9 13

9.4

39.2

39-0

 

56

the specified internal temperatures are shown graphically in

C

Figures 2, 3, 4, 3, and 6.

The cuts are coded in the following manner for the graphs:

sirloin butt, anterior, SBa; sirloin butt, posterior, SBp; round,

anterior, Ra; round, middle, Rm; round, posterior, Hp; strip loin.

SL; rolled rib, anterior, RRa; rolled rib, middle, RRm; rolled rib,

posterior, RRp.

Average total cooking weight losses of the posterior round were
the second lowest among the 9 cuts at internal temperatures of 50°.and
60° C. However, at internal tenperatures of 700, 800, and 900 C, the

average total cooking weight 10sses of the posterior sirloin butt

Mere the second lowest.
The highest total cooking weight losses of the tender cuts studied
and

xvere found in the anterior portion cut of the rolled rib at 500

(50° C internal temperatures. With progressive increase in internal

temperatures, 70° , 80° , and 90° C, the center portion cut of the
tcxp round showed the highest total loss, which was significantly
lziqgher than losses of the posterior sirloin butt, posterior round,

;pc>steri0r rolled rib, and strip loin cuts.
The analyses of variance of total cooking weight losses at
ea ch of the internal temperatures appear in Table 7.
No significant difference in total losses attributable to
grade was found. Average total cooking weight losses of sirloin
lnxtt roasts, as shown in Table 3, increased slightly with each increase
in ISDPade. The average total losses of the other cuts from the three

grauiees showed no consistent pattern in their cooking weight losses.

 

COMMERCIAL ANIMALS

 

 

 

. GOOD ANIMALS

 

 

 

 

 

 

AVERAGE LOSS FOR EACH GRADE

CHOICE

    
     

 

0"

/
COMMERCIAL

K 6000

L 1 l 1 J L J

 

20-
l5'
IO”
F
5-
O
«n
a)
O
.4
u.
0
u!
U
4
.—
Z
to
U
m:
u:
0- ZOP
L .5-
IO"
5r
0
CUTS
Figure ?.

$80 58p Re R!» Rp SL RRa RR» RRp

Total losses of beef roasts from Commercial, Good,
and Choice grades at 50° C internal temperature.

(f. 8
/

COMMERCIAL ANIMALS

25'
ZOr
l5r

 

 

 

GOOD ANIMALS

ZO- /\
l5-

.0, /r'-....

“0“ 00.000”...

  

 

CHOICE ANIMALS

 

LOSS

 

OF
(n

 

 

AVERAGE LOSS roe EACH GRADE
25-
20,, CHOICE 500°
l5- ,/1/ V
I0-
5. COMMERCIAL "

I—‘— PERCENTAGE

 

 

l 1 1 1 l 1 J

O 1 l
CUTS SBo 58p Ra Ra Rp SL RRa RR. RRp

Figure 3. Total losses of beef roasts from Commercial, Good,
and Choice grades at 600 C internal temperature.

59
COMMERCIAL ANIMAL S

 

 

 

 

CHOICE ANIMALS

 

 

 

OF LOSS

OUI
:-
+-
P
I.
L
L

 

35 AVERAGE LOSS FOR EACH GRADE

30, CHOICE GOOD
ZSr
20 *
I5 ' .
IOr COMMERCIAL .

5t

0 l 1 1 1 1 J 1 1

CUTS $80 58;: R0 RI! Rp 5L RRc RRII RRp

r—-— PERCENTAGE

 

 

 

Figure b. Total losses of beef roasts from Commercial, Good,
and Choice grades at 700 C internal temperature.

 

 

60

COMMERCIAL ANIMALS
A

/3--.... \ ———
M /.. \ / \
\
\
\

    

 

 

40’
35-
act
25L
20-

 

LOSS

I5"
IOF
O

 

OF

PERCENTAGE
u
U‘

r..—

-N

mo
Vii

 

O

CUTS
Figure 5.

COMMERCIAL

CHOICE ANIMALS

 

AVERAGE LOSS FOR EACH GRADE
CHOICE____
/

   

/
/

L

J l L L l

L J J
580 58p Ra Rm Rp SL RRc RRm RRp

Total lo:ses of beef roasts from Commercial, Good,
and Choice grades at 800 C internal temperature.

COMMERCIAL ANIMALS

 

 

011.4

GOOD ANIMALS

..
I.
L

 

 

CHOICE ANIMALS

 

LOSS
no
a!

 

 

O F
is
I.

I

 

 

 

{3’ AVERAGE LOSS FOR EACH GRADE
'3 45F CHOICE
0 \‘~..
a: 35%
u
° 30* c fi
OMMERCIAL
L 25-
20r-
|§L
o _x L ‘ 1 l 1 4 L J
curs sea SBp Ra Rm Rp SL RRG RRm RRp

Figure 6. Total losses of beef roasts from Comnerical, Good,
and Choice grades at 900 C internal tenp rature.

62

Table 7. Analyses of variance of total cooking weight losses
at specified internal temperatures.

M. S. Values for Specified Internal Tenperatures

 

 

Source of Variance D.F. 50D C 60° C 700 C BODC 900 C
Total 80

Grade 2 2.83 0.71 8.66 n.63 9.85
Cut 8 53.7u~* 100.03‘* 250.91** 361.41*' 237.74**
Interaction (GxC) 16 3.03 u.u4 11.07 13.02 6.70
Error 5b 2.09 5.07 11.46 1P.89 8.97

 

a

Although a number of studies (5, 3‘, 4?. 88) have shown that cuts
with higher fat content usually have greater total cooking weight losses
than similar cuts with lower fat content, this relationship was not
evident from the results of this eXperiment. However, the three half-
czrcasses of Comrercial grade, from which the roasts for this investiga-
tion were obtained, appeared to be tOp Commercial grade. In addition,
animals B and C of Commercial grade appeared to be of higher quality
than animals E and F of Good grade when the carcasses had been cut.
Anirals A, B, and C were Commercial grade; animals D, E, and F were
Good grade; animals G, H, and I were Choice grade.

It is generally recognized that rolled rib roasts have greater

total cooking weight lOsses than comparable standing rib roasts (4,20).

 

“ Significant at the 1% level of probability

63

Boned roasts have also been shown by investigators to lose more weight
than bone—in roasts when both are cooked under the same conditions (56).
In general, as shown in Tables h and 6, the rolled rib cuts had
higher aVVrage total cooking weight losses than the round cuts at the

lower internal terperatures of 50° , 60° , and 70° C; but at 80° and
90° C internal temperatures, the round cuts had higher losses than the
rolled rib cuts. This may be attributed to the presence of certain
muscles in the round which appeared to conduct heat very slowly, after
the roasts reached 70° C internal temperature. For many of the round
cuts, the cooking time for the 10 degree rise between 70° and 80° C
was as lorg as 3 hours; the internal te:perature remained at 700 C
for one-half hour in a few of the roasts from the top round. For the
10 degree rise between 80° and 90° C, the cooking period for the
round cuts averaged approximately 3 hours. Such lengthy cooking periOQs
resulted in extremely heavy cooking lOsses in these cuts.

The average total cooking weight losses for sirloin butts of
Commercial grade varied from 12.7 per cent at 60° C internal tempera-
ture (rare) to ?8.6 per cent at 80° C (well done). There was an
increase of 7.8 per cent in total losses for the cooking time of
these roasts between 80° C and 900 C internal telperature. The average
total cooking weight losses for sirloin butts of Good grade varied from
13.5 per cent at 60° C to 30.1 per cent at 80° C: there was an increase
of 7.1 per cent for the additional 10 degree rise to 90° C- The average
total cooging weight 10sses for sirloin butts of Choice grade varied

from 13.8 per cent at 60° C to 31.7 per cent at 80° C; an additional

6.5 per cent 1025 was noted for the 10 degree rise from 80° C to 900 C
internal tenpprature.

For tOp round roasts of Connercial, Good, and Choice grades, the
average total cooking weight losses were 13.3 per cent, 13.? per cent,
and 12.8 per cent, reelectively, at 609 C internal temperature; errrage
losses at 80° C for the same grades were 33.0 per cent, 33.6 per cent,
and 32.0 per cent. The increased losses noted for the additional 10
degree rise from 80° to 900 C for Commercial, Good, and Choice grades
were 6.2 per cent, 6.5 per cent, and 7 per cent, respectively.

The aVerage total cocking weight losses of strip 10in of
Corrercial grade varied from 6.8 per cent at 60° C to 15.2 per cent
at 800 C; there has an increase of 9 per cent for the cuts to reach
90° C internal tenperature from 80° C. For comparable cuts of Good
grade, the :verage total cooking weight losses varied from 7.1 per
cent at 60° C to 16.0 per cent at 80°C; there was an increase of 12
per cent for the final 10 degree rise. For strip loins of Choice
grade, the average total losses varied from 6.9 per cent at 600 C to
13.0 per cent at 800 C; an increase of 9.U per cent was observed for
the last 10 degree rise.

The errdQe total cooking weight losses of rolled rib roasts
for Comrercial, Goou, and Choice grades at 600 C internal tenperature
were 15.7 per cent, 15.H per cent, and 15.3 per cent, respectively;
at 800 C the total losses were 31.5 per cent, 31.8 per cent, and 31.3
per cent, respectively. The increased losses attributable to the
10 degree rise between 80° and 90° C were for Commercial, Good, and

Choice grades 6.5 per cent, 7.2 per cent, and 7.9 per cent, respectively.

65

No significant difference in total cooking weight losses attri-

butable to animal variations was found.

Dripping losses

The average percentage dripping lessee of sirloin butt, top round,
etrip loin, and rolled rib roasts at the different internal tempera~
tures are listed in Tables 3, b, 5, and 6, respectively. Dripping
losses for each of the cuts from the three grades may be found in the
Appendix. There were significant differences in dripping losses
attributable to cuts at each of the internal temperatures studied; but
the differences in dripping losses attributable to grade were signi-

ficant only at 90° C internal temperature. Table 8 shows the analyses

0

of variance of dripping losses at 50° , 60o . 70O . 80 . and 900 C-

Table 8. Analyses of variance of dripping losses at
specified internal temperatures.

 

——

H. 8. Values for Specified Internal Temperatures

 

 

Source of Variance D.F. 500 C 60° C 700 C 80° C 900 C
Total 80

Grade 2 0.14 0.17 2.30 4.57 17.89*
Cut 8 l.99** 3.55“ 9.38“"I 31.59" 83.70"
Interaction (G x C) 16 0.31 0.75 ' 2.10 3.03 4.30
Error 5“ 0.39 0.86 1.52 2.79 3.64

‘-

‘Significant at the 5% level of probability
“Significant at the 1% level of probability

66

Analysis of variance showed the average dripping losses at 90° C
internal temperature for Good and Choice grades to be significantly
higher than those for Commercial grade. There was no significant dif-
ference between the average dripping losses of Choice and Good roasts
cooked to 90° C internal temperature.

Total round roasts, including anterior, center, and posterior
cuts, showed the lowest average dripping losses of the cuts studied.
At 50° and 60° C internal temperatures, the lowest dripping loss was
found in the anterior round: at 70°, 80°, and 90° C, the lowest
dripping loss was found in the center portion of the top round.

The anterior portion of the sirloin butt showed the highest
dripping losses of all the cuts at 50°, 60°, and 70° c, but the
posterior rib roasts had the highest average dripping losses at 80°
and 90° 0 internal temperatures. The next highest dripping losses
were found in the strip loin at 50° C, in the posterior rolled rib at
60° and 70° C, and in the center rolled rib cuts at 80° and 90° C.

The dripping losses of the cuts are illustrated graphically in
Figures 7 and 8.

These results indicate that the cuts with increased fat content
generally had higher dripping losses than cuts with decreased fat
content. Mention should be made of the strip loin cuts, which had
the greatest amount of external fat among the cuts used in this study.
Because of the very short cooking period required for the strip loin
roasts, they did not show an extremely high dripping loss even though
these cuts had a heavy fat covering. Explanation of the comparatively
short cooking time required for the strip loins was given previously

in the discussion.

67

50"CI

 

 

 

   
  

 

   

 

 

 

     
 
   
   

 

 

 

IO r
r
5 I—
O
so ° C
IO"
5~ , COMMERCIAL GOOD
‘/ .. —— 17- - —‘-‘—' M
'~" "" ' 'KCHOICE
O 1 L 1 '4 4 1 1 1 J
70 ° C
0')
U)
S: IOr
COMMERCIAL CHOICE
In. 0
o 5 7- ~ - ~~~
. . '(01 ‘0'. o 0 .
m 6000/ K”
o O 1 1 L 1 1 1 1 l __1
.‘5
5 .
u so C
C
Is]
0.
lo CHOICE
’q;.--”’ ““
s - ’ \COMMERCIAL

 

 

l l 1 4 L 1 #1

O L L
CUTS 58a 58;: Ra Ra Rp SL RRa RRIII RRp

Figure 7. Dripping losses Of beef rodsts from Commercial. Good,
and Choice grades at 50°. 60°, 70°. and 80° C internal
temperatures.

68

COMMERCIAL ANIMALS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

     
  

 

 

 

IS F
l0 *-
F' 5 r
O 1 1_ __L _1 1 1 1 1 1
GOOD ANIMALS
I 5 "
IO '-
5 I.
O 1 J 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
CHOICE ANIMALS
M
(I) IS F-
O
.J
‘5 I0 I-
O
uI 5'-
L9
4
1..
5 0 4 1 1 1 4 1 L L J
2
:9: AVERAGE LOSS FOR EACH GRADE
IS F'
'0 I- CHOICE
L 5 ‘ GOOD COMMERCIAL
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 L 1 _l
CUTS $80 58;) Re Rm Rp SL RRo RRIII RRp

Figure 8. Dripping losses of beef roasts from Commercial. Good.
and Choice grades at 90° C internal temperature.

69

Volatile losses

The average percentage volatile losses for the roasts from the
three grades at each Of the internal temperatures are listed in
Tables 3, h, 5, and 6. The volatile losses for each of the cuts
from the three grades may be found in the Appendix. There was no
significant difference in volatile losses attributable to grade. but
there were highly significant differences attributable to cuts at
each of the internal temperatures studied.

The strip loin showed the lowest volatile loss and was signi-
ficantly lower than any of the other cuts. Volatile loss of posteriOr
round was the next lowest at 50° and 60° C. that of posterior sirloin

butt at 70° C, and volatile loss of posterior rolled rib at 80<3and 90° C.

The anterior portion of the rolled rib had the highest volatile
loss Of all the cuts at 50° and 60° C; the center portion of the top
round had the highest volatile loss at 70°, 80°. and 90° C. The next
highest volatile loss was found in the center rolled rib at 50° C. in
the center round at 60° C, in the anterior rolled rib at 700 C, and
in the anterior round at 80° and 90° C internal temperatures. The
average volatile losses of the cuts for each grade at 50°, 60°, 70°.
and 80° C are shown graphically in Figure 9. The volatile losses of
each cut for the three grades and the average volatile losses of each
cut for each of the three grades at 90° C are shown in Figure 10.

These results indicate that comparable cuts in this study

showed similar trends in their total cooking weight and volatile

 

 

70

50° C

CHOICE

    
    

COMMERCIAL”A

1 A 1 l 1 1 4 1 _4

 

 

 

30r
25F
ZOI
l5-
IO.-

LOSS

OF

 

60°C

    

\ 0
COMMERCIAL ‘ CHOICE

L J l 1 L L + 1 J

 

PERCENTAGE

 

CUTS

Figure 9.

 

COMMERCIAL CHOICE

l 1 1 1 l J

580 58p Ra Ra Rp SL RRe RRII RRp

Volatile losses of beef roasts from Commergial, Good,
and Choice grades at 50°. 60°, 70°, and 80 0 internal
temperatures.

COMMERCIAL ANIMALS

40'-
35"
30,
25-

I5-
IOL

 

 

GOOD ANIMALS
40 r

35*
30-
25*
20"

I5
IO

 

 

CHOICE ANIMALS

 

40”
35"
3OI-
25L
20*-

I5”

LOSS

OF

 

 

AVERAGE LOSS FOR EACH GRADE

‘47—6000

40'
35"
30L
25'-
20*-

IS °
I0

PERCENTAGE

    

 

1 1 1 __1

CUTS 580 589 Re Rm Rp SL RRe RRII RRp

Figure 10. Volatile losses Of beef roasts from Commercial, Good,
and Choice grades at 90° C internal temperature.

72

103888. The analyses of variance of volatile losses at the different

internal temperatures are shown in Table 9.

Table 9. Analyses Of variance of volatile losses at specified
internal temperatures.

 

M. S. Values for Specified Internal Temperatures

 

 

Source of Variance D.F. 50° C 60° C 700 C 80° C 90° C
Total 80

Grade 2 1.97 0.24 5.37 2.48 8.61
Cut 8 5u.93*r 101.23** 256.52** #2833“ 365.82**
Interaction (G x C) 16 2.26 2.93 5.86 9.55 25.82"
Error 54 1.33 2.65 8.82 10.28 7.81

 

The analyses of variance of the volatile losses showed interaction
between grade and cut only at 90° C internal temperature. This might be
attributed to the extremely long cooking period required for some Of the
roasts to reach 90° 0 internal temperature; this was noted particularly

for the cuts from the top round and the rolled rib.

Palatability Factors

Since the principle objective Of this study was concerned with
following the subsequent cooking loss~s of each cut through the speci-
fied series of internal temperatures, results of the palatability
scoring were obtained only for cuts cooked to 90° C internal temperature.
Overcooking Of roast meats is a real problem in quantity preparation,
and it was thought that judging samples from roasts cooked to 90° C
internal temperature might furnish data which would show whether similar

cuts of different grades were affected in the same way by overcooking.

 

*‘ Significant at the 1% level of probability.

73

Aroma and flavor

Table 10 lists the average aroma and flavor scores of all cuts
from the three grades cooked to 90° C internal temperature. The
average aroma and flavor scores of roasts from Commercial grade were
significantly higher than those from roasts of Good and Choice grades.
The aroma and flaror averages of the samples from Good and Choice
grades were not significantly different.

The investigator observed strong, pungent odors in a few of the
roasts during the cooking periods between 70° and 80° C and between
80°and 90° c. This strong aroma was attributed to the breakdown of
the fats in the drippings. According to the Judges' descriptive terms
for aroma, there was no correlation between the odor of the cooked
meat samples and the strong odors of the same roasts during cooking.
The taste panel members usually described the aroma as mild or
faint for samples from roasts which had strong odors during cooking.

The analyses of variance of aroma and flavor scores appear in
Table 11.

The analyses of variance of aroma scores showed a significant
difference attributable to grade but no significant difference
attributable to cut. There were significant differences in flavor
scores attributable to both grade and cut.

The strip loin had significantly higher flavor averages than
any of the other cuts. The anterior portion of the top round had

the next highest flavor average but was significantly higher only

74

 

 

 

 

n.m n.m 3.m H.3 0.3 w.3 0.3 o.m m.m omsno><
o.3 a.m m.m 0.3 H.3 a.“ m.m H.m m.o soagoawon .pnw eoaaom
n.m H.m m.m H.3 m.3 0.3 H.3 a.3 e.m oaeeas .pau eoHHom
a.m n.m 3.m o.m m.m H.3 c.m ~.m 3.m noanopao .pan condom
3.m O.“ m.o o.o r.3 e.o 3.m m.3 3.“ anon ontom
e.m o.m H.3 m.3 ~.3 o.m «.3 w.3 e.n osteope
m.m n.m 0.: m.3 0.: m.: 2.: 5.: m.m aofiaeumoa .dqdoa mos
w.N m.N 0.: m.m :.n n.m N.a 0.: m.m maenda .endon doe
3.3 a.3 «.3 o.3 a.“ o.3 m.3 o.m o.m nontosqo .aosot one
m.m H.: 0.: H.: n.: 5.: N.m 0.: :.n emwaebd
m.m m.3 m.3 0.3 a.3 0.3 H.« m.3 H.m noanouooa .opsp caoanam
o.m N.m m.m H.: m.m m.d N.m m.: w.m nowaopcw .apdp afloaawm
oofioho noon: .ano ooflozo dooc . sou eofiono doom .8300 111
some 33.... .3.5 .8
monoom anomaoauhmmnmohfi‘. meaoum ao>mam mwmam>< moaoom e893. omdhmbd I

 

. i

.ohsunaeauop Hosanna“ 0 com o» vexooo made
ooflono can .eooc .Hnmonosaoo no monoou emocwuwnn can .ao>maw .muoad owdao>< .oa oaflma

75

Table 11. Analyses of variance of aroma and flavor scores.

 

M. S. Values

 

 

Source of Variance D. F.

Aroma Flavor
Total 80
Grade 2 “.92“ n.32*s
Cut ‘ 8 o . 59 2 . 88"
Interaction (G x c) 16 0.33 0.62
lrror 5h O.h4 0.81

 

when compared with the anterior portion of the rolled rib roast which
had the lowest flavor score of all the cuts. The flavor of many
samples from t0p round. sirloin butt, and rolled rib roasts was de-
scribedby the Judges as slightly acid, rancid. bitter, old, and mild
but peculiar. The fairly low flavor scores for all samples of all
grades of these cuts were attributed to undersirable changes which
occurred during the long cooking period required for roasts from top
round, sirloin butt. and rolled rib to reach 90° C internal temperature.
The average aroma and flavor scores of the cuts from the three grades

are shown graphically in Figure 11.

Juiciness

The average Juiciness scores are listed in Table 10 and are
illustrated graphically in Figure 11. The analysis of variance of
Juiciness scores. Table 12, showed no significant difference attri-
butable to grade but a highly significant difference attributable

to cut.

 

as Significant at the 1% level of probability.

76

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

8
(—
u, COMMERCIAL
U
z .—
(3 6
k) a
U)
4
4
. [
2
4 2"
g L
O_ 1 J 1 1 l 1 l L J
(- 8F
3 - COMMERCIAL
3 6r
U
CD _
C ‘F
2 r
j .
u. 2
\— P
o 1 J j n 1 A J 1 #I
5: 8r-
U .
g r COMMERCIAL
3 5’
3 r
u 4+
E
g D
9, 2-
L
i-
O 1 l l 1 1 1 J a a4
CUTS $80 589 Ra Ra Rp SL RRe RR» RRp

Figure 11.

Average aroma, flavor, and Juiciness scores of beef
roasts from Commercial, Good, and Choice Grades cooked
to 900 C internal temperature.

77

Table 12. Analysis of variance of Juiciness scores.

 

 

Source of Variance D. F. M. S.
Total 80

Grade 2 1.11
Cut 8 5.78*‘
Interaction (G x C) 16 0.70
Error 54 0.85

 

*7

Results of other studies (26, 65, 70) have shown that extended
cooking decreases the juiciness of meat. The average scores for
Juiciness indicated that a similar conclusion could be made from the
results of this investigation. The Judges consistently rated the
strip loin highest in Juiciness of all the cuts. Analysis of the
data also showed the strip loin to be significantly higher in Juici—
ness than any of the other cuts. The center round showed the lowest
average score for Juiciness of all the cuts. Although no statistical
correlation was calculated, there was a trend suggesting a probable
negative correlation between the average Juiciness scores of the

taste panel and the total cooking weight losses in this study.

Appearance and texture

The average scores for appearance and texture of the cuts
cooked to 900 C are listed in Table 13. There were significant
differences in appearance scores attributable to both grade and cut.

The analysis of data showed a significant difference in texture scores

‘TSignificant at the 1% level of probability.

78

hi

 

 

 

a.: a.: o.: m.m ~.: : omcaaaa
a.“ a.m o.m N.: m.: n.: aaaaoaaoa .paa eoaaom
N.: o.: :.: m.m 0.: :.: oaeeaa .paa eoaaom
m.: :.: m.: a.m m.m a.m aoaaaaan .paa ooaaom
a.m m.m H.c N.m m.m m.m aaoa aaaam
H.m w.: m.m “.3 m.: m.: omeam><
o.m w.: m.m m.: 0.: ~.m acaaoaaoa .eqaoa ace
H.: 0.: N.“ n.m m.m o.m oaeeaa .acaoa ace
a.“ m.n m.: m.: o.m 2.: aoasopcn .choa mos
a.: :.m m.: m.m o.m m.: owaaoaa
a.: m.m m.: m.m :.m a.: aoaaoaaoa .aaap eaoaaam
a.: ~.n o.m a.m 0.: o.m . aoaaoaae .aasp aaoaaam
QUHODO fioo¢ .EEOU OOaOSO 6000 .8800
puree ocsac ado
mmaoom annexes mmmao>< mouoom eonmadummd awnao><

.madpmsoasop assuage“ 0 com o» cmMooo wpdo ooaogo
can .coow .Hnwoaoaaoo mo moaoom msdpxm» one eoqwaeomam omsam>< .ma manna

attributable to cut but no significant difference attributable to
grade. The analyses of variance of appearance and texture scores

appear in Table 1h.

Table 14. Analyses of variance of appearance and texture scores.

 

H. 5. Values

 

 

Source of Variance D. 1'.

Appearance Texture
Total 80
Grade 2 h.65*‘ 0.08
Cut 8 2.96“ 2.5“‘*
Interaction (G x C) 16 0.72 0.5?
Error 5“ 0.70 0.63

 

The average appearance scores for samples from Commercial and
Good grade roasts were significantly higher than scores for samples
from comparable cuts of Choice grade roasts. There was no significant
difference between the appearance averages of samples from Commercial
and Good grade roasts.

Samples from the strip loin were scored highest in appearance.
and the averages were significantly higher than those of samples
from the sirloin butts, center portion of the tap round, and the
rolled rib roasts. The anterior portion of the rolled rib roasts
showed the lowest score for appearance of all the cuts. In general,
the Judges scored samples from the rolled rib roasts, including
anterior, center, and posterior cuts, lower in appearance than the

other cuts. Because of the long cooking period necessary for this

 

l""Significant at the 1% level of probability.

80

blocky cut, the rolled rib roasts shrank greatly in size; they also
appeared charred and hard on the external surface. The surface fat
from the roasts had melted until only a thin layer of charred fat was
visible on the outside of the roasts. These dry roasts were very
difficult to slice; therefore, the majority of the samples from the
rib roasts were crumbly. Many of the samples from the top round,
sirloin butt, and rolled rib roasts were described as iridescent in
appearance by the Judges.

The taste panel members scored the strip loin highest in texture
of all the cuts. The analysis of data of texture scores showed the
strip loin to have significantly higher texture averages than the
anterior and posterior sirloin butts, center round, and anterior and
center rolled rib cuts. The anterior portion of the rolled rib roasts
showed the lowest texture average and was significantly lower than
jposterior rolled rib, strip loin, and anterior and posterior round
cruts. Graphic illustrations of the appearance and texture scores
(of the roasts from the three grades are presented in Figure 12.

Rib roasts are considered to have finer texture than roasts
from rounds (77). In this study, because of the extremely long
(:ooking periods involved, this finding was not observed. The texture
<>f the majority of the samples from the rolled rib roasts was de-

scribed with such terms as crumbly, powdery, and separation of fiber.
Innis powdery quality and separation of fiber were also noted in
rCasts from the tap round but apparently not to the same extent as

111 the rib roasts.

81

 

 

 

 

,.
a) 8'-
: I.
0 GOOD
U 5 _ , COMMERCIAL
u) I \\
U -
‘2’ 4L-
‘ ...o .. e O \ e e
32‘ ’ ' CHOICE
2 2 _
2
g L-

O 4 1 1 1 4 1 1 1 __1

e
0',- COMMERCIAL
g P
O 6 -
U
m b
a: 4 ~
I)
F P
if.
I— 2”
s. L

L 1 1 1 1 1 1 4

 

 

0 1
CUTS - $80 589 Ra Ra Rp SL RRO RRII RRp

Figure 12. Average apsenrance and texture scores of beef
roasts from Commercial, Good, and Choice grades
F] e
cooked to 90‘ C internal temperature.

82

Tenderness and shear force

The tenderness of cooked meat has been studied 'by many investigators.
According to a number Of findings (1, 70), the tenderness of cooked
meat is increased with extended cooking. Since the palatability scoring
in this experiment concerned roasts cooked to 90° C internal tempera-
ture, tenderness might be expected tO score higher than that reported
in many meat cookery studies. The results of this experiment showed
that tenderness scored higher than any of the other palatability factors.
The average scores for tenderenss and shear force readings are listed
in Table 15.

The average tenderness scores for samples from Choice grade
roasts were significantly higher than those from Commercial and Good
grade roasts. No significant difference in tenderness was found between
the average scores Of samples from Commercial and Good grade roasts.

The analysis of data of shear force readings also showed the
cuts from Choice grade to be significantly more tender than those
from Commercial and Good grades. The shear force averages of samples
from Choice grade roasts were significantly lower than those from
samples Of Commercial and Good grade roasts. No significant difference
was found between the average shear force readings for samples from
Commercial and Good grades. The analyses of variance of tenderness
scores and shear force readings appear in Table 16.

The analyses of tenderness scores and shear force readings

also revealed significant differences attributable to cuts. The

83

 

o.® m.HH o.HH m.5 o.c o.5 oweao><
H.5 a.oa m.oa m.a 5.0 m.5 sesamewoa .pas eoaaom
m.m m.aa a.mH H.a H.o m.o caeeas .pas eoHHom
N.OH m.ma N.oH N.5 0.0 0.5 “chanced .pah doaaom
a.m ~.NH a.ma o.a o.e m.m qaoa datum
w.HH 5.3a :.ma 0.5 5.n 0.0 ammuo><
5.m N.na o.HH 5.5 m.: 5.0 soauomeQ .vsdoh doe
m.¢a m.ma a.:a o.m N.m a.n oaeeaa .eqsos doe
5.0a n.ma 3.:H m.5 0.5 w.m nowa0pde .dndoa dos
o.m «.ma ~.ma m.5 0.0 o.m owsse><
0.5 N.oH o.oH 0.5 3.0 0.0 soaaopmod .updp qwoanwm
m.oa d.ma H.0H ~.5 m.m m.m nonsense .upep qaoaufim
eugeno 6006 .ano ooflono coca .5200

 

 

ensue

cease

 

mmswvsmm venom amonm omnax><

museum wmonaoecoe ommao><

pfio

 

.oHSnnaoaaoe amen;pcfi 0 com on woxooo «use ooflono can .eooa
.Hmwoaeaaoo mo mmumunma mono“ as.nm was museum mandamu:Op smegm>< .ma capes

Table 16. Analyses Of variance of tenderness scores and
shear force readings.

 

M. S. Values

 

 

Source of Variance D. F.

Tenderness Shear Force
Total 80
Grade 2 9.63“ 73.22"
Cut 8 2 . 55' 39 . 27"
Interaction (G x C) 16 0.98 5.15
Error 5“ 1.15 11.30

 

center cut of the top round averaged highest in shear iorce and was
significantly higher than any Of the other cuts. The average tender-
ness score of the center cut Of the toP round was significantly lower
than any of the other cuts with the exception of anterior sirloin butt
and posterior round. The shear force averages Of samples from the
posterior rib roast were the lowest among the 9 cuts. The average
tenderness score Of the posterior cut of the rolled rib was the highest
but was significantly higher only when compared with the anterior
sirloin butt and center round. The results indicated a probable high
negative correlation between the tenderness scores of the Judges and
the shear force tests. The tenderness and shear force averages are

shown graphically in Figure 13.

Edible Portion Cost

Although the cost per pound Of raw meats is important to the food

service Operator, the edible portion cost of cooked meats is a more

 

‘ Significant at the 5% level of probability.
’* Significant at the 1% level of probability.

I?"

 

m
kn
‘I

 

 

 

 

       
  

 

r'
{3 e-
a:
o t
u
m 6"
m
:3 r
E 4- COMMERCIAL
U
0 r-
E.
h 2'
L. a
O n 1 1 l 1 1 L 1 I
o-
r- G‘L
r
8" .0. v
- caoncc
'0’ 0... ..° / ° .‘ .
L O
3 nab
K
o .
Is.
m z
x I
g +- ’COMMERCIAL
35 l6f- / \
m * GOOD
2
3 I8—
0 I-
0.
L 20-
: 1 L 1 l L 4 1 l I
CUTS $80 SBp Re Rm Rp SL RRe RRm RRp

Figure 13.

Average tenderness scores and shear force readings
of beef roasts from Commercial, Gene, and Choice
grades cooked to 90° C internal temperature.

86

reliable basis for cost control. Many meat cookery studies include
fuel costs in the actual portion cost of cooked meats. However. in
this experiment, the edible portion costs are based only on the total
cooking weight losses at the diiferent internal tenperatures and the
costs per pound of oven-ready cuts. The average costs per pound of
uncooked roasts were $ 0.5508, s 0.6599. and $ 0.7161, for Commercial.
Good, and Choice grades. respectively.

The methods for computing the cost per pound and also the actual
portion cost of cooked meats have been presented previously in the
Method of Procedure.

Because the total cooking weight losses increased with each rise
in internal tenperature of the meat, the cost per pound of cooked meat
would be expected to increase accordingly. The costs per pound of
cooked Commercial, Good, and Choice beef cuts at internal tempera—

o. and 900 0 appear in.Tab1e l7 and are shown

tures of 50°. 60°, 70°. 80
graphically in Figure 14. The increased costs which were found with
rise in the internal temperature of the meat, particularly from the
well done stage to 900 C, emphasize the importance of the extent of
cooking meats in relation to food budget control.

Anterior sirloin butt roasts of Commercial grade showed an
increase of $ 0.11 per pound from the well done stage to 90° C internal
temperature; there was an increase of $ 0.09 per pound for similar
cuts of Good grade and $ 0.08 for cuts of Choice grade. An increase

of $ 0.08 per pound was noted in the posterior sirloin butt roasts of

Commercial grade, $0.12 in comparable roasts of Good grade, and $ 0.12

87

Table 17. Cost per pound of cooked Commercial, Good, and Choice
beef cuts at internal temperatures of 50°, 60°, 70°.

80°, and 90° c.

 

 

500 0 60° 0 70° c 80° 0 90° c

Sir.butt, anterior

Comm. $ 0.6027 8 0.6324 s 0.6949 3 0.7917 $ 0.9018

Good .7276 .7719 .8699 1.0009 1.0930

Choice .7930 .8439 .9514 1.1063 1.1943
Sir.butt.posterior

Comm. .6074 .6323 .6850 .7577 .8380

Good .7244 .7495 .7985 .8895 1.0058

Choice .7898 .8160 .8844 .9954 1.1241
Top round,anterior

Comm. .6104 .6455 .7257 .8264 .9424

Good .7125 -.7428 .8298 .9537 1.0841

Choice .7745 .8095 .8814 1.0227 1.1530
Top round.midd1e

Comm. .6061 .6517 .7425 .8605 .9391

Good . 368 .8034 .9392 1.0668 1.1570

Choice .7986 .8552 .9832 1.1202 1.2228
Top round.posterior

Comm. .5724 .6097 .6679 .7594 .8484

Good .7083 .7546 .8565 .9760 1.0726

Choice .7695 .8026 .8912 1.0292 1.1553
Strip Loin

Comm. .5789 .5908 .6127 -.6495 .7267

Good .6903 .7116 .7368 .7870 .9178

Choice .7504 .7695 .7915 .8328 .9346
Rolled rib.anterior

Comm. .6265 .6711 .7504 .8338 .9218

Good .7463 .7923 .8930 1.0002 1.1159

Choice .8352 .8930 .9969 1.1245 1.2740
Rolled rib,middle

Comm. .6177 .6625 .7383 .8238 .9075

Good .7316 .7750 .8647 .9742 1.0910

Choice .8047 .8450 .9296 1.0330 1.1739
Rolled rib,posterior

Comm. .5996 .6276 .6833 ..7627 .8458

Good .7329 .7748 .8452 .9377 1.0458

Choice .7855 .8179 .8800 .9815 1.1020

 

 

CD
01

RARE 60° c

‘b
“ o" ~~ /
~~ " “ I
‘-----’ ... ~
0’ 0

O

'0'. .. .. .
e .. e eeee

70° C

MEDIUM

 

POUND

 

COST PE R COOKED

 

 

$l.30r
L20+
LloL

LOOr

 

f
'2‘!»
OO
'1

 

OVERCOOKED 90 ° C

\
\
‘ ”"“‘ I, \\
I \
\ a s I ‘s
‘\ av“ 0.. -
‘a" .0 O \ ’ \
O. .. \ I ... “
O O . . O.
.0 e" '0 \ I e ..e.
‘o .e' O \ I e O...
'0 ° ' \ I °
0.. O .
e \ .
’ e
.e e
o
1 1 L A A

 

CUTS

_ COMMERCIAL

1:31.51er 11} .

A L I
53;: Ra Ra Rp SL RRe RR: RRp

OOOOOOGOOD

SBo
""" CHOICE

Cost per sound of cooked Cowmercial, Good, and Choice
beef cuts at 600, 70°, 80°, and 90° C interngl tempera-
tures. Costs per pound of raw meat were $0,5508 10y

Connercial, $0.65}? for 9320, and 60.7161 for Choice.

89

in roasts of Choice grade. The costs per pound of cooked posterior
sirloin butt were lower than these of cooked anterior sirloin butt
for all three grades.
For the additional cooking period from 800 to 90° C internal
temperature, the anterior portion of the top round showed increases
of $ 0.08, $ 0.13, and $ 0.13 per pound for Commercial, Good, and
Choice grades, respectively. The increases in cost per pound of center
round were $ 0.08. $ 0.09, and $ 0.10 for Commercial, Good, and Choice
grades, respectively; for the posterior sirloin butt of Commercial,
Good, and Choice grades, the increases were $ 0.09, $0.09, and $ 0.13, '
respectively. The costs per pound of the cooked center round cut were
higher than those of anterior and posterior round cuts from Good and
Choice grades. The costs per pound of cooked anterior and center
round cuts from Commercial grade were approximately the same at 800 C
internal temperature; the costs of these two cuts were also comparable
at 900 C internal terperature.
An increase of $ 0.08 per pound was noted in the cost of strip
loin from Commercial grade during the cooking interval between 800 C
and 90° C. Increases of $ 0.13 and $ 0.10 per pound were found for
the strip loins of Good and Choice grades during the final 10 degree
temperature rise.
The anterior portion of the rolled rib roasts of Commercial,
Good, and Choice grades showed increases of $ 0.09, $ 0.12, and
$ 0.15 per pound, respectively, for the cooking period between 80° C

and 900 C internal temperature; increases of $ 0.09, $ 0.12, and

90

£$ 0.14 per pound were noted in the center cut of the rolled rib roasts
.for Commercial, Good, and Choice grades, respectively. From the well
clone stage to 90° C, the increases in cost per pound of posterior rolled
rib of Commercial, Good, and Choice grades were $ 0.09, $ 0.11, and

.$ 0.12, respectively. The costs per pound of the cooked anterior
:rolled rib out were higher than those of cooked posterior and center
:rolled rib cuts for each of the three grades.

The costs for 2.5-ounce portions of cooked top round, sirloin
butt, and rolled rib rOests and 4-ounce portions of cooked strip loin
at the diiferent internal tesperatures appear in Table 18.

The roasts in this study were cut from Carcass and a single
basic cost was established for all cuts suitable for roasting. When
the costs per pound of cooked roasts at 800 C internal temperature
(‘well done) were compared, it apoeared that sirloin butt would be the
r 0st economical to prepare among the tender cuts of the same grade.
iiowcver, when primal cuts or fabriCated meets are used, this cost
relationship might not always be true because of the variation in
market prices. The strip loin had the lowest total cooking weight
loss and consequently the lowest cost per cooked pound.

However, the edible portion cost for strip loin was higher than
‘that for any of the other cuts because it was necessary to make
allowance for the large amount of external fat in the strip loin
so that the portion of edible lean most would be comparable to the

portion from other cuts.

‘m

91

Table 18. C03t per portion of cooked Commercial, Good, and Choice
beef cuts at internal temperatures of 50°, 60°, 70°, 80°,
and 900 C. All costs are based on 2.5-ounce portions of
cooked weight, with the exception of strip loin which is
based on 4-0unce portions.

 

 

50° c 60° c 70° 0 800’s 90° 0

Sir.butt, anterior

Comm. 8 0.0942 t 0.0988 s 0.1086 $ 0.1237 $ 0.1409

Good .1137 .1206 .1359 .1564 .1708

Choice .1239 .1319 .1487 .1729 .1866
Sir.butt,posterior

Comm. .0949 .09“8 .1070 .1184 .1309

Good .1132 .1171 .1248 .1390 .1572

Choice .1234 .1275 .1382 .1555 .1756
Top round,anterior

Comm. .0954 .1009 .1134 .1348 .1473

Good .1113 .1161 .1297 .1490 .1694

Choice .1210 .1265 .1377 .1598 .1802
Top round,middle

Comm. .0947 .1020 .1160 .1345 .1467

Good .1151 .1255 .1468 .1667 .1808

Choice .1248 .1336 .1536 .1750 .1911
T0p round,posterior

Comm. .0894 .0953 .1044 .1187 .1326

Good .1107 .1179 .1338 .1525 .1676

Choice .1202 .1254 .1393 .1608 .1805
Strip loin

Comm. .1447 .1477 .1532 .1624 .1817

Good .1726 .1779 .1842 .1968 .2295

Choice .1876 .1924 .1979 .2082 .2337
Rolled rib,anterior

Comm. .0979 .1049 .1173 .1303 .1440

Good .1166 .1238 .1395 .1563 .1744

Choice .1305 .1395 .1558 .1757 .1991
Rolled rib,midd1e

Comm. .0965 .1035 .1154 .1287 .1418

Good .1143 .1211 .1351 .1522 .1705

Choice .1257 .1320 .1453 .1614 .1834
Rolled rib,posterior

Comm. .0937 .0981 .1068 .1192 .1322

Good .1145 .1211 .132 .1465 .1634

Choice .1227 .1278 .1375 .1534 .1722

92

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The primary objective of this study was to determine the effect
of five different internal temperatures on the cooking weight lessee
of roasts prepared from the tender cuts of Commercial, Good, and
Choice grade beef carcasses.

The total cooking weight losses of all cuts increased with each
rise in the internal temperature of the meat, as was exgected. There
was no significant difference in total losses attributable to grade
at any of the internal temperatures. However, highly significant . w
differences were found among the cuts for all the grades. The cooking
weight losses of the strip loin at each of the internal temperatures
were significantly lower than those of any of the other cuts with the
exception of the posterior round out at 500 C internal temperature.
The highest total cooking weight losses of the tender cuts were found
in the anterior portion of the rolled rib at 50° and 60° C internal
temperatures and in the center cut of the top round at 700 ,.80 O, and
90° 0.

In general, at 50°, 60°, and 70° 0 internal temperatures, the
average total cooking weight losses of the rolled rib roasts were
higher than those of the top round cuts; but at 80° and 900 C, the
round cuts showed higher cooking losses than the rolled rib cuts.

No significant difference in total cooking weight losses attri-

butable to animal variations was found.

93

There were significant differences in dripping losses attributable
to cuts at each of the internal temperatures studied; but the differ-
ences in dripping losses attributable to grade were significant only
at 90° 0 internal temperature. The average dripping losses at 90° C
for Good and Choice grades were significantly higher than those for
Commercial grade. There was no significant difference between the
average dripping losses of Good and Choice grade roasts cooked to 90°C
internal temperature.

Total round roasts, including anterior. center. and posterior
cuts, showed the lowest average dripping losses of the cuts studied.
The anterior portion of the sirloin butt had the highest dripping
losses at 50°, 60°, and 700 C; but the posterior rib roasts had the
highest average dripping losses at 80° and 90° C internal temperatures.

Ho significant difference in volatile losses attributable to
grade was found: but highly significant differences at each of the
internal temperatures attributable to cuts were found. The strip
loin consistently showed the lowest volatile loss of all the cuts.

The average volatile losses of the anterior rolled rib were the
highest of all cuts at 50° and 600 C; however. the average losses of
the center round out were the highest of all the cuts at internal
temperatures of 70°. 80°. and 90° C.

The second objective of this study was to compare the effect of
the degree of internal temperature on the edible portion cost of the

roasts.

is TE 27“.

90

Since the total cooking weight losses of the cuts increased with
each rise in internal temperature, the costs per pound of cooked meat
increased proportionately. The increase in cost for the additional
cooking period from the well done ehsge to 90° C varied from $ 0.08
to $ 0.12 per pound in the sirloin butt roasts. For the roasts from
top round, the increases in cost for this additional cooking period
ranged from $ 0.08 to $ 0.13 per pound. The strip loin roasts for
Commercial, Good, and Choice grades showed increases of $ 0.08, $ 0.13,
and $ 0.10 per pound for the 10 degree rise between 80° and 90° C.
The costs per pound of cooked rolled rib roasts showed increases of
$ 0.09 to $ 0.15 per pound for the extended cooking from 80° to 90° C
internal temperature.

The third objective was the comparison of the palatability of
all cuts of the three grades. cooked to a final internal temperature
of 90° C.

From the results of the palatability scoring. it appeared that
the roasts from Commercial grade averaged somewhat higher than those
from Good and Choice grades. Statistical analysis showed the average
aroma and flavor scores of roasts from Commercial grade to be signi-
ficantly higher than those from Good and Choice grade roasts. The
average appearance scores for samples from Commercial and Good grade
roasts were significantly higher than scores for samples from comparable
cuts of Choice grade roasts. No significant differences in Juiciness

and texture scores attributable to grade were found. The average

95

tenderness scores for samples from Choice grade roasts were signi-
ficantly higher than those from Commercial and Good grade roasts.

The results of the shear force readings and tenderness scores indicated
a probable high negative correlation.

The average flavor and Juiciness scores of the strip loin were
significantly higher than those of any of the other cuts. The strip
loin also scored highest in appearance and texture of all the cuts,
and the posterior cut of the rolled rib roast scored highest in
tenderness of all the cuts.

The lowest average flavor. appearance, and texture scores of all
cuts were found in the anterior portion of the rolled rib roasts. The
center cut of the tOp round averaged lower in Juiciness and tenderness
than did any of the other cuts. No significant difference in aroma
scores attributable to cute was found.

The following conclusions were drawn from the results of this
investigation.

The increased total cooking weight Iceses and the corresponding
increased costs per pound of the cooked roasts point out the importance
of the extent of cooking in meats, particularly in relation to food
budget control. Over-cooking of meats from the well done stage to
90° C internal temperature resulted in fairly low palatability scores
in addition to the increased total weight losses and increased costs
per edible portion.

The tender cuts of Commercial grade compared favorably in palata-

bility factors, except for tenderness, with similar cuts of Good and

W

96

Choice grades. The cuts from Choice grade were appreciably more tender
than those of Good and Commercial grades; but this quality alone did
not make the roasts from Choice grade more acceptable than roasts from
Good and Commercial grades. Since no significant differences in total
cooking weight losses among the three grades were found, it appeared
that tender cuts of Commercial grade might be more economical to
purchase than oven-ready cuts from Good and Choice grades.

0n the basis of total cooking weight losses and costs per edible
portion of meats at 80° C internal te perature found in this study.
it appeared that sirloin butt cuts would be the most economical of the
tender cuts to prepare. The roasts in this investigation were cut
from carcass and a single basic cost was established for all cuts
suitable for roasting. However, when primal cuts or fabricated meats
are used,.this cost relationship might not always be true because of
variation in market prices. Further studies on_tender cuts of beef
from the three grades cooked to an internal temperature of 80° C

would provide data for comparison with the results of this study.

1.

10.

11.

12.

9?

LITERATURE CITED

Aldrich, P. J. Good and Choice beef rounds: effect of extent
of cooking on palatability and edible portion. Unpublished
Ph. D. Thesis. Ames, Iowa. Iowa State College Library. 1951.

Alexander. L. M. Cooking time varies with the style in which
beef roasts are cut. U. 8. Dept. Agr. Yearbook. p. 152-15h.
1931.

Alexander, L. M. Shrinkage of roast beef in relation to fat
content and cooking temperature. J. Home Econ. 22:915-922.
1930.

Alexander, L. M. and Clark, N. G. Shrinkage and cooking time of
rib roasts and beef of different grades as influenced by style

of cutting and method of roasting. U. 3. Dept. Agr. Tech.
Bul. 676. 1939.

Alexander, L. M. and Clark, N. G. Shrinkage and he‘t penetration
during roasting of lamb and mutton as influenced by carcass
grade, ripening periods, and cooking methods. U. S. Dept.
.Agr. Tech. Bul. 440. 1934.

Barbella, N. G., Hankins, O. G. and Alexander, L. M. The influence
of retarded growth in lambs on flavor and other characteristics
of the meat. Proc. Am. Soc. Animal Prod. 29: 289-294. 1936.

Bard, J. C. and Tischer, R. G. Objective measurement of changes
in beef during heat processing. Food Tech. 7:296-300. 1951.

Bevier, I. and Sprague, E. C. Roasting of beef. Ill. Agr. Expt.
Sta. Cir. 71. 1903.

Black, W. 3., Warner, K. F., and Wilson, C. V. Beef production
and quality as affected by grade and steer feeding grain
supplement. 0. 5. Dept. Agr. Tech. Bul. 217. 1931.

Boggs, M. M. and Hanson, H. L. Analysis of food by sensory
difference tests. Advances in Food Research. 2:213-258. l9h9.

Brady, D. E. A study of the factors influencing tenderness and
texture of beef. Proc. Am. Soc. Animal Prod. 30:246-250. 1937.

Brady, D. E., Smith, F. H., and Tucker, L. N. Control of
rancidity in soybean fed perk. J. Animal Sci. 5:358—364. 1946.

13.

1a.

15.

16.

17.
18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

98

Branaman, G..A., Hankins, O. G., and Alexander, L. M. The
relation of degree of finish in cattle to production and meat
flavors. Proc. Am. Soc. Animal Prod. 29: 295-300. 1936.

Bratzler, L. J. Measuring the tenderness of meat by means of a

mechanical shear. Unpublished M. S. Thesis. Manhattan, Kansas.

Kansas State College Library. 1932.

Brown, J. E. The cooked yields and shrinkage losses of boneless
chuck and round roasts from Good steer beef. Unpublished M. S.
Thesis. Columbus, Ohio. Ohio State University Library. 1948.

Bull, 5. Heat for the table. lst ed. N. Y. McGraw Hill Book
Co., Inc. p. 1-93. 184-198. 1951.

Garrick, C. W. and Range, M. S. The effect of codliver oil upon
flavor in poultry meat. Poultry Sci. 5: 213-215»1926.

Child, A. M. Selection and use of pork cute. Minn. Agr. Expt.
Sta. IBM. 254. 1929.

Child, A. H. and Baldelli, M. Press fluid from heated beef
muscle. J. Agr. Res. 48: 1127-1134. 1934.

Child, A. H. and Esteros, G. A study of the juiciness and flavor
of standing and rolled beef rib roasts. J. Home Econ. 29:
183-187. 1937.

Child, A. M. and Fogarty, J. A. Effect of interior temperature
of beef muscle upon the press fluid and cooking losses.
J. Agr. Res. 51: 655-662. 1935.

Child, A. M. and Satorius, M. J. Effect of exterior temperature
upon the press fluid, shear force, and cooking lasses of
roasted beef and pork muscles. J. Agr. Res. 57: 865-871.
1938.

Clark, R. I. and VanDuyne, F. 0. Cooking losses, tenderness,
palatability, and thiamine and riboflavin content of beef as
affected by roasting, pressure saucepan cooking, and broiling.
Food Res. 14: 221-230. 1949.

Cline, J. A., Loughead, M. E..and Schwartz, B. C. The effect of
two roastingtemperatures on palatability and cooking losses
of roasts. Mo. Agr. EXpt. Sta. Bul. 310. 1932.

Cline, J. A. and Nesbitt, C. The effect of cooking upon the
composition and serving value of beef. Mo. Agr. EIpt. Sta.
Bul. 370. 1936.

26.

27.

28.

30.

31.

32.
33-

35-

36.

37-

38.

39.

99

Cline, J. A., Trowbridge, E. A., Foster, M. T. and Fry, 3. E.
How certain methods of cooking affect the quality and
palatability of beef. Mo. Agr. EIpt. Sta. Bul. 293. 1930.

Cover, S. Effect of extremely low rates of heat penetration on
tenderness of beef. Food Res. 8: 388-394. 1943.

Cover, S. Effect of metal skewers on cooking time and tenderness
of beef. Food Res. 6:233-238. 1941.

Cover, S. The effect of temperature and time of cooking on the
tenderness of roasts. Texas Agr. Expt. Sta. Bu1. 542. 1937.

Cover, 5., McClaren, B. A., and Pearson, P. B. Retention of the
B vitamins in rare and well-done beef. J. Nutr. 27: 363-375.
1944.

Crist, J. W. and Seaton, H. L. Reliability of organoleptic
tests. Food Res. 6: 529-536. 1941.

Crocker. E. C. Measuring food flavors. Food Res. 2:273-256. 1937.

Dahlinger, E. L. A comparison in total weight loss, volume of
drip loss, and tenderness of precooked and fresh frozen roasts
of beef. Unpublished M. S. Thesis. Columbus, Ohio. Ohio
State University Library. 1953.

Davis, J. G. and Hanson, H. L. Sensory test methods. I. The
triangle intensity and related test systems for sensory
analysis. Food Tech. 8: 335-338. 1954.

Day, J. C. Longissimus dorsi of three grades of beef: comparison
of cooking weight losses, palatability, and edible portion.
Unpublished M. S. Thesis. East Lansing, Michigan. Michigan
State College Library. 1953.

Deatherage, F. C. and Rieman, W. .Measurement of beef tenderness'
and tenderization of beef by the Tenderay process. Food Res.

11: 525-534. 1946.

Dove, W. F. Fnod acceptability: its determination and evaluation.

Dunnigan, J. H. A study of palatability and price of two grades
of sirloin butts. Unpublished M. S. Thesis. East Lansing,
Michigan. Michigan State College Library. 1943.

Fosdick, W. New developments in meat processing. Conf. Course
Lectures. University of Chicago. p. 109-112. June, 1948.

“O.

41.

42.

43.

45.

46.

47.

[+8.

49.

50.

51.

V:

100

Freeman, E. B. Effect of cooking temperatures on the quality and
in vitro digestibility of beef stew: and pot roasts. Unpublished
Ph. D. Thesis. Minneapolis, Minnesota. University of Minnesota
Library. 1952.

Grindley, H. S., McCormack, R., and Porter, H. C. Experiments on
108398 in cooking meat. U. 5. Off Expt. Sta. Bul. 102. 1901.

Grindley, H. S. and MoJonnier, T. Experiments on losses in
cooking meat, 1900 and 1903. U. S. Dept. Agr. Off. Expt. Sta.
Bul. 141. 1904.

Griswold, R. M. and Wharton, M. A. Effect of storage conditions
on the palatability of beef. Food Res. 6: 517-528. 1941.

Halliday, E. G. Objective tests for cooked food. Food Res. 2:

Rankine, O. G. and Hiner, R. L. Freezing makes beef tenderer. ,
Food Ind. 12: 49-51. 1940.

Harrison, D. L. Shrink, rate of heat transfer, and palatability
of beef cooked at the same temperature in air, steam, water,
and fat. Unpublished M. S. Thesis. Ames, Iowa. Iowa State
College Library. 1943.

Helssr, M. D., Nelson, P. M., and Lowe B. Influence of the
animal's age upon the quality and palatability of beef. Iowa
Agr. Expt. Ste. Bul. 272. 1930.

Banks, L. A. Animal husbandry. Hawaii Agr. Expt. Sta. Biennial
Report. p. 31. 1950-52.

Hiner, R. L., Caddie, A. M., and Rankine, O. G. Effect of
methods of protection on palatability of freezer-stored meat.
' Food Tech. 5: 223-229. 1951.

Hiner, R. L. and Bankins,0. G. Temperature of freezing affects
tenderness of beef. Food Ind. 19:1078-1081. 1947.

Howe, P. E. The relation of cooking to the study of the quality
and palatability of meat. J. Home Econ. 19: 8-15. 1927.

Jackson, S. 8., Crook, A., Malone, V., and Drake, T. G. H. The
retention of thiamin, riboflavin, and niacin in cooking pork
and in processing bacon. J. Nutr. 29: 391-403. 1945.

Latzke, E. Roast beef, rare, medium, or well done. Agr. Exten.
Div. N. Dak..Agr. Col. Cir. 96. 1930.

56.

57.

58.

60.

61.

62.

63.

650

101

Latzke. E. Standardiihgg methods of roasting beef in experimental
cookery. H. Dak. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 242. 1930.

Lowe, B. Experimental cookery. 3rd ed. N. Y. John Wiley and
Sons, Inc., p. 201-263. 1943.

Lowe, 3., Grain, E., Amick, G., Riedesel, M., Peat, L. J., Smith,
F. B., McClurg, B. R., and Shearer*P. S. Defrosting and
cooking frozen meat. Iowa State Col. Agr. Expt. Sta. Res.
Bul. 385, 1952.

Lowe, B. and Stewart, G. F. Subjective and objective tests as
food research tools with special reference to poultry meat.
Food Tech. 1: 30-38. 1947.

Mackintosh, D. L., Hall, J. L., and Vail, G. Some observations
pertaining to tenderness of meat. Proc. Am. Soc. of Animal
Prod. 29: 285-289. 1936.

McCance, R. A. and Shipp, H. L. The chemistry of flesh foods
and their losses on cooking. Spec. Rpt. Series, No. 187.
Medical Research Council. London. 1933.

McIntire, J. M., Schweigert. B. 5., Henderson, L. M. and Elvehjem,
C. A. The retention of vitamins in meat during cooking._ J.
Nutr. 25: 143-153. 1943.

Marble, D. R., Hunter, J. E., Knandel, H. C., and Dutcher, R. A.
Fishy flavor and odor'in turkey meat. Poultry Sci. 17: 49-53.
1938.

Moran, T. and Smith, E. C. Post-marten changes in animal tissues.
The conditioning or ripening of beef. Great Britain Dept.
Scientific Ind. Res. Food Investigations Board. Spec. Rpt.

No. 26. 1929.

Morgan, A. F. and Nelson, P. M. A study of certain factors
affecting the shrinkage and speed in the roasting of meat.
J. Home Econ. 18: 371-378, 444-448. 1926.

National Cooperative Meat Investigations, Committee on Preparation
Factors. Meat and Meat Cookery. Chicago Nat'l. Livestock and
Meat Board. p. 129-166. 1942.

Noble, I. T., Halliday, E. G., and Klaas, H. K. Studies on
tenderness and juiciness of cooked meat. J. Home Econ. 26:

(BEL

6?7.

<38.

(59?.

71).

71.

720

73-

74.

75-

76.

77.

102

Overman, A. and Li, J. C. R. Dependability of food judges as
indicated by an analysis of scores of a food tasting panel.
Food Res. 13: 441-449. 1948.

Palmer, A. 2., Brady, D. E., Naumann, H. D., and Tucker, L. N.
Deterioration in frozen pork as related to fat composition and
storage treatments. Food Tech. 7:90-95. 1953.

Paul, P. and Child, A. M. Effect of freezing and thawing beef
muscles upon press fluid, losses, and tenderness. Food Res.

2:339-347- 1937.

Paul, P. C., Lowe, B., and McClurg, B. R. Changes in histological
structure and palatability of beef during storage. Food Res.
9:221-233. 1944.

Paul, P. C. and McClean, B. B. Effect of different internal
temperatures on veal roasts from calves of three different

weights. Food Res. 11:107-110. 1946.
Podd, G. 0. Significant ratios in present day restaurant
Operations. Conf. Course Lectures. University of Chicago.
p. 68. June, 1948.
Problems of taste testing. (News release) J. Am. Diet. Assn.
30:756. 1954.
amsbottom, J. M. Freezer storage effect on fresh meat quality.

Ramsbottom, J. M. and Koonz, C. H. Studies on frozen beef.
(Abstract) Proc. Am. Soc. Animal Prod. 31:261. 1938.

Ramsbottom, J. M. and Strandine, E. J. Comparative tenderness
and identification of muscles in wholesale beef cuts. Food
Res. 13:315-330. 1948.

Ramsbottom, J. M., Strandine, E. J., and Koonz, C. H. Comparative
tenderness of representative beef muscles. Food Res. 10:497-

509. 1945.

Satorius, M. and Child, A. M. Effect of cut, grade, and class
upon palatability and composition of beef roasts. Minn. Agr.
Expt. Sta. TBChe B‘lle 1310 1938.

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. 3:627-635. 1938.

79.

80.

81.

87.

88.

89.

90.

91.

92.

93-

103

Shea, K. C., Meyers, I. 5., Rarick, M. S., and Morse, R. E. Fat
injection of beef animal parts. Food Tech. 7:437-442. 1953.

Siemers, L. L. and Banning. F. A study of certain factors
influencing the juiciness of meat. Food Res. 18:113-120. 1953.

Simpson, J. I. and Chang, I. C. L. Effect of low freezer storage
temperature and wrapping material on the quality of frozen
meets. Food. Tech. 8:?46—252. 1954.

Sjostrom, L. B. and Cairncross, S. B. What makes flavor leader-
ship! Food Tech. 7:56-58. 1953.

Sprague. E. C. and Grindley, H. S. A precise method of roasting
beef. Univ. of Illinois. University Studies. Vol. II. No. 4.

1907.

Stanley, L. and Cline, J. A. Foods: Their selection and
preparation. N. Y. Ginn and Coxpany. p. 252-301. 1935. ’

Stech, 0. D. and West, G. M. Roasting meat at 250° F. J. Am.
Diet. Assn. 30:160. 1954.

Study on distribution of food cost dollar. Institution Adminis-
tration Seminar Students. (Unpublished resort) East Lansing,
Michigan. Michigan State College. 1952.

Tannor, D., Clark, N. C., and Rankine, O. G. Mechanical determina-
tion of Juiciness of meat. J. Agr. Res. 66: 403-412. 1943.

Thille, M., Williamson, L. J., and Morgan, A. F. The efiect of
fat on shrinkage and speed in roasting beef. J. Home Econ.
24:720-733. 1932.

Vail, G. E. and O‘Neill, L. Certain factors which affect the
palatability and cost of roast beef served in institutions.
J. Am. Diet. Assn. 13:34—39. 1937.

Van Arsdale, M. B. and Monroe, D. EXperimnnts comparing the
COSt of merts as purchased.and eaten. Teachers College Record.

18:38-50. 1917.

Waisman, A. and Elvehjnm, C. A. The vitamin content of meat.
Burgess Publishing 00. Minneapolis, Minn. p. 82—83, 105-106.
1941.

Wenzel. Geo. L. Menu-Maker. Austin, Texas. 403 Riley Road.
p. 16. 1947.

Zeigler, P. T. The meat we eat. 4th ed. Danville, Illinis.
The interstate Printers and Publishers. p. 5, 256-278. 1953.

104

PENDIC‘LS

105

 

 

 

n.HH m.HH s.mH 0.0 s.oa 0.0a 0.0a m.on e.oa m.oa 5.m 0.HH messesa
0.0 m.m m.0H H.5 m.m 0.0a m.m m.m N.m 5.0 0.5 0.u Compasses .pas eoaacm
o.HH 0.HH m.HH m.ca m.m m.m 0.0 H.0H o.HH N.HH 0.0 0.mH enemas .pas emaaom
n.3a m.aa 0.0a m.HH s.HH m.HH m.HH 0.HH m.ma 5.HH m.HH 5.NH nonsense .pas emaaom
0.: m.m H.s 5.0 m.: 5.: 0.0 0.: ..3 m.m H.m H.5 Aoaogsv anon sassm
1.0 5.m m.m 0.0 H.m a.m 5.0 m.m 0.5 0.5 H.5 H.m owssepe
m.0 m.m 5.0 m.m 5.0 H.5 5.m 0.5 m.m m.H e.m 0.0 sonsopmos .eeeon mos
n.0H 5.0a 5.0a 0.m m.oa 0.Ha H.m m.oa m.m 0.m 0.0 0.5 unease .0ssos mos
2.5 m.5 0.0 m.0 0.5 5.0 5.0 2.0 5.0 5.m o.m 0.0a soasssee .0qson mos
0.m m.m m.oa 0.m :.m m.m H.m 5.0a 0.0 0.5 5.0 0.0 omssope
e.m 0.0 0.0H H.m H.m 0.0 5.m m.m H.m m.5 0.m 0.0 seasmsmoa .sssp eaoasam
5.m 0.0 0.0a 0.0H 0.0 5.0 0.m 0.HH 3.0 «.0 0.0 m.m assesses .sssp enoaenm
.>< H m o .>< s a n .>< o m 4
oeoo assae< oeoo Hwaae< oeoo Hmsae<
souomo noes q<Hoxasioo ape

 

HQ<mu mmaomdu

.ohduGHQQSOp Housmp:d 0 com on 603000 mummoh Mo

moaned maaxooo Hence no emspsmosom
mommog mcHMooo

.mH

.4 Hdnqoamd

.Hpms

106

 

0.0H H.0H H.5H e.ea 3.0H N.0H H.0H H.0H 5.0a H.0H 5.:a 0.5a omsssse
0.mH N.NH m.ea 0.cH 0.3H H.0H 3.3H 5.mH m.mH H.NH 0.HH m.mH soasmpwom .nas eonaom
n.0a «.0H n.0H n.0H 0.3a 5.0a m.ea 5.3H 0.5a H.5H 2.0H m.ma eflssaa .pus eoHHom
n.mH 0.3m e.HN n.5a 5.0a 0.5a n.0a 0.0a 0.0a 0.0a .0.ma m.mH nonesses .pns emafiom
0.0 d.m m.m m.m H.m m.m m.w m.m m.o H.m 3.: 3.0H Aoaonzv awed mwhum
0.NH m.:~ 3.:H m.HH 5.ma m.eH 0.HH n.0H m.nH 5.MH m.ma m.:H oneness
5.0a 5.0a 0.m 0.0 :.mH m.ma 0.m 3.0H m.m 0.0 0.HH e.HH sensopmoe .0qsns ace
n.0a H.0H 5.0a «.mfl 0.5a e.mn 0.2H 5.0a 0.0a 5.5a 0.mH 3.0H masses .0qsos nos
m.HH 0.0H m.ma m.oa o.HH 1.0H m.CH m.HH m.:H H.ma m.ma m.ua Hoasopam .dqsOn ace
0.ma H.MH 0.:a e.mH 0.MH «.ma 0.oH m.0H 5.mH 0.0a n.3H e.ma moss.>0
m.ma 0.mH «.ma ,0.HH «.me m.oa 0.mH m.ma 5.NH H.aa m.ma H.mH sansssmca .ppsp escapee
N.0H 0.mn 0.0a n.0a m.eH 5.mH 5.ma 0.5a m.NH 0.0 0.3H 0.:a Assesses .spep eaoflaam
.>s H m a .>< h Q Q .>< o m d

 

coco HMEwc4

mnoo dewc<

ouoo Hmawc<

 

aoHomo

moon
madmw nw<omdo

AdHoxgzsoo

.ondpdummamp Assumes“ 0 com on voxoou menace mo

moewoa mswxooo fleece Mo omspcoosom

.om manna

BDo

10.7

 

 

 

 

HQ<mo mmdom<o

.oedumsemaou Housman“ 0 com o» coxooo cannon we
nommoa mquxooo H0000 mo ewd0qoonom

.HN Danna

m.mm 0.mm N.:N H.NN m.mm 0.0m 0.mm 0.mm 5.mm «.mm 0.NN 0.0m 0000.04
0.00 0.00 0.0N 0.00 o.mm «.mm 0.0m n.0m 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0m 000000mom .000 000000
0.0m m.mm m.mm 0.mm 0.nm w.m 5.N~ 0.0N 0.0m 0.00 0.0m n.0m 000003 .p0u euaaom
N.mm 0.mm 0.0m n.0m m.0m 0.0m 5.0m m.mm 5.0m N.0N 0.5N m.mm 00000000 .00u condom
0.m 0.5 0.0 m.NH m.oa 0.00 m.m 5.00 0.30 0.0 0.0 0.00 Aoaonzv 0000 @0000
5.0m e.mm 0.:m 0.00 m.:~ 0.mm 0.NN n.0N e.mm 0.0N e.mm 5.0m owss0><
5.00 5.0m 0.50 0.00 m.mm 0.0m 5.0m H.0N 5.50 m.m 0.Nm 5.m0 000000moe .eqsos mos
0.5m 5.mm 0.Nm H.0N 5.mm m.mm N.0N 0.0m 0.0m n.5m 3.0m m.0m 000005 .00000 mos
5.00 0.00 0.0m 0.00 0.0m 0.00 0.0m 0.0N 0.0m o.NN 5.NN N.5N 00000000 .eqsou mos
0.0N N.HN 0.NN 0.0m 0.0m 0.00 0.m0 o.mm m.m0 0.50 m.0m 0.HN omme0><
0.m0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 n.0H 0.50 0.00 0.m0 0.00 0.o~ n.00 000000wos .0000 0000000
0.0m m.mm 0.5N «.0m 0.0m 0.nm H.Hm n.0m 0.0m 0.00 o.m~ 0.nm 00000000 .0000 q0oas0m
wad H m e .00 m n a .04 o m 4
0000 005004 .000 005004 .000 Hma0n<
moHomo aooe 0400mmzzoo ape

108

 

 

 

 

fiadmc mm<om<o

.ohd0m0mmuo0 H00000q0 o oom on 000000 000000 mo
000000 $000000 H0000 Ho mmspooosom

.NN canoe

AdHommizoo

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000004
0.50 5.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.00 000000000 .000 000000
5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 «.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 000000 .000 00000m
0.00 5.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000000 .000 000000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0000000 0000 00000
0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000004
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000000 .00000 000
0.00 0.00 0.50 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 000000 .00000 000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.50 00000000 .00000 000
5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 5.50 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000004
0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.00 0.50 0.50 000000000 .0000 0000000
0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000000 .0000 0000000
.04 0 m 0 .04 0 0 q ..4 0 m 4

0000 000004 0000 000004 0000 000004

000000 0000 000

109

 

 

 

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.50 0.00 0000000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000000 .000 000000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 000000 .000 000000
0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000000 .000 000000
0.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000030 0000 00000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000000
0.50 0.00 5.00 0.00 _.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 000000000 .00000 000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 000000 .00000 000
0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000000 .00000 000
0.00 0.00 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.50 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 5.00 0000000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 000000000 .0000 0000000
0.00 0.00 5.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 5.00 0.00 00000000 .0000 0000000

0 m 0 .00 0 0 a .00 0 m 4

0000 000000 0000 000000 0000 000000
000000 0000 0000000200 000

 

findmu mmdomdo

.00506000500 quuo000 0 com 00 fiancee 000000 0o
000000 wcaxooo 00000 no owmpcoonom .mm oHpma

110

o.m

 

 

 

 

n.~ o.m m.~ a.“ n.m m.a N.N m.H o.~ :.H m.~ ommhm><
m.m m.H m.m m.H m.N m.~ m.m m.a n.H u.H :.H H.m “afihmpwog .pwu umfiaom
H.~ m.~ a.m H.~ m.H m.H N.H N.N H.~ m.m m.a o.m maucfia .pfin coHHom
u.~ m.~ m.n m.H a.m m.m n.H :.N o.~ o.m m.H m.m uofihmgum .pfla coHHom
:.N m.H m.a :.m :.N m.m m.~ N.N w.m N.m m.H m.m AmHonzv qufl afiuum
:.H m.H o.H o.H :.H o.~ m.o m.H o.H o.H m.H H.N mmmg¢><
:.H H.N m.o H.H m.H m.~ 0.0 m.H m.H m.o :.N o.m hoflgmpmog .quOH ace
m.H m.H w.m n.H m.H m.~ N.H H.H H.H N.H o.c o.H magmas .cqsoa moa
o.H n.a o.H v.0 o.H H.H m.o 3.H o.N 0.0 m.a n.N nofihmuqm .uqdou mos
¢.N N.N m.m m.m m.m o.m N.m m.~ m.~ H.N m.H m.m ommhm>¢
m.~ H.N .m.H m.m m.H H.H m.a m.H n.H s.H a.” n.H Hofih¢pwom .ppsp cfiofiufim
u.~ m.m m.m m N o.m N.m n.m N.m .m.N o.m m.a m.m “Cayman“ .apup cfioapflm
.>< H m .>¢ m m 9 .>4 0 m ¢ ‘1
ouoo Hmadad ocoo Hmawn< odoo,HMaH:¢
moHomo meow A<Hommzzoo ape

 

mama mmaaomfio

n!

.ouduwuomaop awakens“ 0 com o» coMooo upwth

mo mommoa wuammfinu mo wwwpawonom

.aN magma

111

 

 

 

N.m m.m m.m o.n o.m m.m H.N o.n m.~ o.m H.N w.m ommhw><
m.m m.m m.: 3.“ m.m m.: N.m H.m m.m m.m H.m H.m pofip¢gmom .pwh cmfifiom
H.m m.m m.m $.m :.N m.m. m.H m.m m.m m.m m.H H.: mavcwa .pflu omfiaom
m.m :.m m.: m.m m.m o.m w.H N.m m.m m.m fw.m m.« ReflgmpsM .pHg cmaacm
m.m m.H :.m m.: H.n m.m w.m m.m H.m \N.m m.H H.m Awflogav qfioa awhpm
o.m m.m a.m o.H m.m H.m n.H w.“ :.m o.H m.N m.m mmmpmpm
o.m m.m m.H m.H H.m m.m m.H ;u.m m.m H.H 0.: u.m Hofigogmog .dqsOH mos
:.N m.m n.m m.“ u.m n.m ,H.N m.m m.H N.N H.H m.m oafivfia .quCH mos
o.H m.H u.H :.H N.H ,:.H 0.0 m.H o.m m.H m.m m.m hoflhopaw .cqsop mos
m.m :.m :.m m.n :.m H.m H.m m.m o.m m.m m.m u.m omahm>4
u.m H.m m.m o.m N.N m.a .m.m w.m m.N :.N m.m 3.“ poauopwog .pudp :Hoflpwm
N.: m.n 0.: m.: 9.: m.: m.m w.: m.m u.m o.m «.3 aofihmpcm .ppsp afloaufim
.pq H m a .>< a a a .»< o m 4
mfioo Hmaflad muoo Amafia< edoo Hmawm<
moHomo noes a<Hommzzoo ape

 

Hadmd mmdum<o

.mhspmummaop Hmdnwpnfi 0 com o» umxooo mammou

mo mommoa madmadnd mo mmxpcoouom

.nN oprB

a;
1

\

 

 

 

 

"

madmm mmfiUM¢o

.ohdpmuwmiop awakens“ o 005 o» vmxooo mumwop

mo mommoa wqdmmauo mo omaaaoonom

.0m

03005

3.0 0.3 H.0 3.0 0.3 0.0 .5 5.3 n.3 3.3 5.m 0.3 mmmho>3
«.0 0.3 H.5 m.m N.0 0.5 «.0 m.0 m.3 5.3 m.m 0.3 003000005 .93“ umaaom
0.0 5.3 5.3 H.5 3.3 3.0 ~.n 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.m 0.0 mavnfla .009 uuaflcm
0.0 5.3 0.0 ~.0 m.m 5.3 n.m m.3 5.n .m 5.m 0.3 90300030 .00“ deHom
0.m 0.N 5.m H.0 H.3 m.m m.3 0.3 H.3 N.N m.m 3.5 5030330 3003 @3000
H.m 0.m o.m m.N 0.m H.0 0.5 N.3 m.m N.N 3.m m.m mmapm>3
w.m N.d m.m o.N m.m v.5 H.m m.m m.n 5.H m.d m.: uofihwpmom .0c50a mos
H.m 5.m 3.m ~.m 3.m H.3 m.m m.n m.~ m.m 0.3 m.m 0H003e .0300“ 509
m.m 3.m o.m m.m 0.N 5.5 m.H N.m m.m 0.N m.3 0.3 uofihmpcm .3qsog 505
0.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 N.0 0.3 3.3 ~.3 5.0 ommnm>0
0.0 5.0 m.n ~.m 3.m 5.N n.m N.3 H.3 m.3 m.3 0.m powgmpmom .ppsp afloapflm
0.0 5.0 m.0 5.0 3.5 0.5 5.0 3.0 «.0 3.3 m.3 5.0 aofluwpqd .0050 afloaufim
.w53 H .m, 0 .>3 5 m n .>< 0 m 4. In.
0000 Hmafia< ouoo H35333 .» 0000 Haganq
moHompt:, QOOO adHommggoo emu

113

 

 

 

5.0 3.5 5.5 0.5 5.5 0.5 5.0 0.5 0.0 5.5 5.0 0.0 owwumpd
0.5 5.0 3.33 0.0 5.5 5.33 0.5 0.0 0.0 H.5 0.5 3.0 000303005 .33“ cmaaom
0.0 3.5 5.5 5.00 5.5 0.5 «.0 0.5 5.5 0.0 5.0 0.5, 030035 .03“ uoflaom
5.0 5.5 0.5 H.5 0.0 5.0 N.3 0.0 0.0 «.0 0.0 0.0 30000330 .pah dwaaom
5.3 5.5 5.5 0.5 0.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 5.0 5.5 5.0 3.03 “030330 3003 50330
5.5 5.3 3.~ 3.3 0.3 00 5.5 0.3 0.0 0.5 0:... 3.0 05.20:
3.0 0.0 5.3 «.0 0.0 5.03 3.0 5.0 5.3 5.0 0.0 5.0 “00303005 .3330“ 505
5.N 5.5 0.0 N.5 0.5 5.5 5.N 3.3 0.5 5.5 3.5 N.N oaduaa .0330“ 509
~.m 5.5 5.~ 3.0 H.m 5.5 H.N 5.5 3.3 5.0 0.3 5.3 00030333 .3330“ 509
m.0 0.5 N.m m.5 5.0 0.0 m.0 0.0 0.0 m.0 5.m 3.m ommhm>4
5.5 3.0 0.0 5.5 3.0 3.3 0.3 5.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 5.3 000300005 .3330 afloaufim
0.0 5.0 5.3 0.5 5.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.5 5.0 3.0 “0050030 .0330 afiofluwm
.>< H m 0 .>3 .rzw m n .53 o m .mnl .:
0000 305333 0305 Hmeflc< 0000 330334
moHomo meow yr. 3<Hommzzoo ape

 

andmc mm40m4o

 

.mgdpmummem» awakens“ 0 com o» cmxooo mummou

mo nonwoa mcammahd mo 0mmpcmouom

.mm wands

11$

 

 

 

 

0.53 0.03 3.33 0.53 5.03 0.03 3.5 0.03 3.5 3.03 0.03 0.0 0003030
5.53 0.03 0.03 5.53 3.03 3.33 5.03 5.33 5.5 0.5 0.03 5.0 303303003 .033 003300
5.53 0.33 0.53 5.33 0.33 5.03 «.03 0.33 5.5 5.33 5.5 0.0 030 33 .033 003300
0.03 0.03 0.33 0.03 0.5 5.03 0.5 0.5 3.0 5.5 5.5 0.0 30330300 .033 003300
0.5 3.5 0.0 5.53 0.33 0.33 3.33 5.33 3.0 5.3 5.0 0.33 3030020 0303 53330
0.3 0.0 0.5 0.3 0.3 0.0 5.0 5.3 0.3 5.3 5.3 5.5 0003033
w.m 0.0 0.: 0.0 m.w $.03 H.m :.m 0.: m.m m.m 3.m 30330000Q .0GSO3 mos
0.5 5.3 0.0 5.5 5.5 0.5 0.5 0.3 0.5 5.5 5.0 3.0 030030 .03003 303
N.: 5.: m.m N.: H.m 5.m 3.3 m.3 H.m N.m 0.0 0.3 30330030 .0qsO3 mos
m.5 m.m 0.0 m.w 0.5 ®.© N.5 m.m m.w u.m m.5 H.m omx3m><
0.5 3.03 0.5 0.5 5.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 5.5 0.5 0.0 303303003 .3300 0303330
0.0 m.0 m.n H.m m.5 :.m m.5 m.5 m.0 0.5 0.0 0.3 303300G0 .0pdp q30333m
.00 3 m 0 .30 3 a a .33 0 m 3
0000 300300 0000 000330 0000 300304
303000 0000 3330002200 300

 

QQ<MQ mméomdo

.035003mm300 30:30033 o oom Op deooo 000003
no mowwoa mn3mm330 no 0mmpcoo30m

.wm mapwe

115

mw030>¢

mm030><

owm30>¢

 

 

 

0.5 5.5 3.0 5.5 3.0 0.0 5.0 3.0 5.0 .0 5.0 0.5
5.0 5.0 3.5 3.0 0.5 0.5 0.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 3.0 0.0 303303300 .033 003300
5.0 3.5. 5.0 3.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 5.0 5.0 3.3 0.5 030030 .033 003300.
0.33 0.03 3.03 5.5 5.5 5.0 3.03 3.5 0.03 5.5 5.03 5.03 30330300 .333 003300
3.0 5.3 3.0 5.0 5.3 0.0 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 0.5 3030030 0303 03330
5.0 0.0 5.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 5.0 0.5 0.5
5.0 0.5 0.5 5.0 0.5 5.3 0.0 3.5 3.0 5.0 0.3 0.3 303303000 .00003 003
3.0 0.0 3.0 N.m 0.0 3.5 5.5 3.5 3.0 3.0 5.5 5.5 030038 .00203 009
3.0 5.0 5.5 5.5 5.0 0.5 0.0 5.0 5.5 0.0 3.0 0.5 30330300 .00003 003
3.5 0.0 0.0 5.0 3.5 5.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 5.5 0.5 3.0
0.5 5.0 0.0 5.0 0.5 5.0 5.5 3.0 3.5 5.0 5.5 0.5 303303000 .3303 0303330
0.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 5.5 3.0 0.. 5.5 5.0 0.5 30330300 .3300 0303330
.33wr, 3 m 0 .30 3 m n .30 0 m 0
0000 300300 0000 303300 0000 300300
003000 0000 3030033000 300

 

HQ<M¢ mmddfido

.ouduwnomam» 300303a3 0 com on vmuoco 030003

no 000003 0333030> Mo nom03coo3mm

.mm

manna

{I‘ll

 

116

 

 

 

o.~H n.mH N.nH :.HH :.NH :.NH o.mH H.NH m.NH m.NH o.mH m.ma ommpmpm
m.m w.m 0.0H N.m o.H~ ~.HH m.HH 0.0H m.m m.m :.m «.0H Hafihopmog .pfiu deHom
~.NH m.~H :.NH :.HH :.NH m.~H o.NH N.NH m.mH w.mH m.HH m.mH mauvfia .pflh cwaaom
n.0H H.ma H.mH n.3H «.ma n.ma m.aa n.ma r.mH m.nH m.mH m.uH hofih¢uca .pfih vmaflcm
0.: m.m m.m m.: 0.: m.: N.m 3.: u.m m.m m.~ m.m Amaoxnv qMOH gfiupm
m.oH m.HH m.mH 5.0 ¢.HH m.aa n.0H m.ma m.oa o.HH 3.0H H.NH mmmk¢><
m.m m.NH m.m N.m m.m :.m m.m n.HH 0.0 w.: 0.0 m.m pofiumpmoa .vqsOu Q08
m.ma n.~H m.nH o.mH H.mH 0.:H m.NH o.mH “.mfl m.mH :.mH «.ma macufla .cqsop mos
m.m m.w m.HH H.m m.m m.m m.o N.oH N.NH m.HH H.HH :.MH Aowgmusm .vndoh Q09
m.o~ n.m H.HH m.m H.0H H.m m.m m.HH n.m H.w :.HH n.m ommgm>«
o.« 5.0 «.0H m.m 0.3a m.m m.oH m.o N.oH m.m 0.0H “.1 hofihmuwom .upsp afloagflm
9.HH m.m N.NH H.HH m.oa m.m w.m o.mH m.m H.o m.HH m.m “canopqm .ppsp afloahflm
.3 H m a f .3. m a a :3 o m 4
once Hwewcd ocoo Hmaac< ovoo Hmawn¢
noHomo nooc A¢Hommzxoo 9pc

 

andmw mm<omdo

.ohdumummamp Hangman“ 0 com o» dmxoro mummOA
mo mmmmoa ofiwuafio> Mo ommucoouom .om magma

117

 

 

 

m.m~ m.mH H.mH u.oa o.mH :.mH H.0N m.wH 3.0H m.ma H.0H n.HN omshm><
a.mH H.3H n.ma o.mH w.mH 0.:H m.oa H.0H N.;H H.3H o.ma 3.0H powpmpmom .pwu vaHom
3.3H ¢.wH o.ua n.0H «.mH a.mH m.mH m.mH n.0m u.ma N.wH m.mw QHUUfia .pwn umfiaom
o.mm m.mm H.mm H.Hm o.~m u.HN a.nm m.o~ o.mm m.om m.mm m.am Howpwgam .pwu umafiom
0.0 m.: H.m 5.5 N.o m.o m.m u.o o.m 5.: N.¢ o.m noflogsv cdoa magpm
o.ma m.mH m.am 0.0H m.om “.ma 0.0H H.3N H.0H m.mH 0.0m 0.0m ommgo>¢
H.0H n.3m 0.:H m.m N.na H.3H m.mH H.om 0.:H B.“ m.mH :.mH uofihopmoa .uqsou nee
0.:N m.m~ u.mm o.mm m.wm 0.3m m.mm N.Nm w.nm o.¢m w.mm H.mm oaogda .vqsou nos
m.mH m.mH :.ma o.na w.ma m.na ~.mH e.mH m.om 3.0H a.wH n.mm “canopcm .vqsoa ace
3.0H :.ma o.mH o.mH o.mH H.3H n.3a m.ma m.mH H.nH o.uH m.m~ ammum><
H.3H H.3H m.:H m.mH «.3H o.mH 0.:H 0.:H m.mH a.:a 3.0H m.:a newhepmoa .upsp afloagfim
m.mH m.oH H.N~ n.5H o.mH. m.aa 3.:H m.~m :.mH o.HH m.uH m.wH newhmpqa .gpsp afloau«m
.p4 H m u .>< m m n .>< o m ¢
0600 ngwc¢ ouoo Hwefic< wuou Hmawa<
aoHomo aooo 9:0

53 ommzzou

 

HQdMG mm<om¢o

.mhdumnmgeop Hmcnmuqfi 0 com 0» 003000 mameh
mo mammoa oaaamHo> Ho mmmpnooumm

.Hm wands

 

:.mm m.mm N.NN m.Hm H.2N “.mm m.:m m.am 5.:N m.mm “.mm m.mm wmmhqp<
o.mH w.wa H.mH m.wH 3.0N H.mH m.om N.Hm H.Hm m.mH m.cm :.o~ Hofihmpmon .nfiu umflflom
m.HN m.~m m.HN 0.0m m.:m m.mm m.:~ m.mm o.mm m.mm m.NN m.mm eacwfie .pag vmflaom
:.mm m.mm «.WN m.mm n.5m :.mm :.am 3.0N m.m N.mm m.mm n.Hm uofiumpcu .pflg voaaom
H.m m.m o.m m.HH m.m N.o m.m m.oa m.m N.“ o.w «.3H Aofionsv awed afluam
m.mm n.wm m.om 0.5m m.mm o.mm m.mm m.Hm «.mm :.mm m.mm o.mm mmaLm>4
o.mm m.Hm m.nm n.mH m.m~ 3.Hm o.mm H.0m m.NN H.3H H.nm H.0N uoflgmpmoa .«qsou nos
n.mm m.om m.om m.mm m.am m.om m.Hm o.wm o.mm u.mm m.Hm N.em wavcfiu .cqsou cos
m.o~ m.mm a.mm m.mm 0.5m H.3m 3.0m 0.5m H.Nm «.mm “.mm o.mm pofiumuqa .uqsou gee
«.mm m.mm H.0N m.mm n.mm N.mm N.HN H.mw o.mm m.ma «.mm :.mm ommum><
m.o~ m.om m.HN m.ma m.om :.am m.om m.om m.Hm N.om m.HN “.mm uofikmpmoa .upap afloauam
m.mm 3.0m w.om 2.5N o.om m.mm m.HN m.cm m.mm H.wH o.mm 0.5m noduopam .uasp ndoahfim
.>< H z c .>< m m n .>< o m 4

 

coco anewcd

mvcu Hwflaq<

muoo Hmaac<

 

uoHomo

930$

AdHommz£Oo

 

334mg mmdomdo

.ohdpwummeop Hangman“ 0
mo m¢mhoa oaaadHQfiko wmxucoopmm

com o» umxooo mpm¢on
.mm magma

BDo

119

 

 

 

N.om m.mm ®.mm “.mm H.mN m.mm o.mN n.mm o.wm n.0m a.nm w.mm omduo><
m.HN m.mm n.0m m.mm m.:~ m.mm m.:m «.mm N.mm m.mm m.mm 0.5N “cahoomoa .pwu umaflom
m.nm 3.5N 3.3N m.mm o.mm 3.5m o.mm m.wm m.mm N.m~ H.wm m.mm caucda .pH» coHHom
m.Hm :.mm H.Nm H.mN m.Hm n.Hm m.m n.0m o.mm m.m~ m.on «.mn podnmpam .pflu uoHHom
3.:H m.nH m.HH o.m~ 3.0H o.ma :.wH n.5a H.0H m.HH m.NH H.m~ Aoflonxv qfioa mfiupm
m.:m m.am w.nm m.:m o.mn m.nm H.0m 3.5m o.nm 0.3m 0.3m m.wn ammuo><
m.mm m.am o.mm m.mm m.am .n.sm m.Hm n.nm o.om N.om m.mm H.mm “canopmom .uqdou.aoa
0.5m m.om m.m H.mm «.mm m.o: m.mm «.0: :.mm 0.5m o.om m.oa oflcuda .uqsou aoa
“.mm H.mm 3.3m m.:m m.nm o.mm m.mm m.mm o.om m.wm 2.3m m.nm “caucus“ .aqsou mos
3.0m m.om n.9m H.mm o.mm 5.0m m.mm H.0m n.mm m.mm m.mm m.mm omauop<
m.mm m.mm m.wm m.mm m.mm m.mm H.0N N.om o.o~ 3.:m m.mm m.mm uofiuouwog .apnp udOHpHm
“.mm m.mm N.:m a.mm o.mm o.mm “.mm m.:m n.mn m.u~ H.mm m.on aoflncpqfi .ppsp cacaufim
.»< H m o .>< m m a .»< o m 4

ofiou Hmsfla< muoo Hxaflc< ouoo Hmsaa<

aoHomu aooa quomagmwo spa

 

M935 mmdomdao

 

.ohdaquQSOp Hmdhoaca 0 com o» voxooo upmdou
mo moumoa oafipmaob mo mwwpaooucm

.mn oapme

120

0.:
“A
H5
9m

o.m

\

v.3

H.m

o.m
H.«
5.:
N.m

mg

m.:
5.:
0.:
o.m

m.:

m.:
m.:

9":
V\

a.n

O\ [\
m

C‘\

m.:

(\1
“W

o.w
u.w
i.

0.0

:.m
m.:

m.m

owwpm><
Howhmpmom .pfih omaaom
«Human .pHa omHHcm

hoflhmpqx.pwn dwaaom

Amaogsv cwoa mfiupm

mflfipw>4
aofiumumom .wcdon mos
macwwa .dqdou 209

uofiuwucw .cqzon ace

mmmaw><
godpauwcm .upSL afloahww

newhwpzm .pudp awoaywm

 

H

.pd

m

 

mdoo Hwaaad
aoHomu

“..O' lllll

ovoo finsfls<

‘1

andmo mmdomdo

ouoo Haafiqq
a<Hommzon

 

DDo

 

.ondpdgomao» Hangman“ 0 com on dmxooo
meadon no mmuoow macaw ommuo><

mmuoom maflafipmpsafim .m nauaogm<

.dm magma

 

 

 

3.3 0.3 m.3 o.m 0.3 u.m 3.3 m.3 3.3 3.3 0.3 m.m owauwpa
3.3 3.3 «.3 3.3 3.3 o.m m.3 3.3 m.n 3.3 3.3 m.m 303333303 .333 3333om
3.3 3.3 3.m 3.m «.3 3.3 3.3 m.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 0.3 333335 .333 333303
3.m 3.m 3.3 m.n m.m 3.3 o.m 3.m 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.m 30333333 .333 3333om
0.3 3.3 n.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 0.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3330323 3303 33333
m.3 0.3 0.3 n.m 3.3 m.m 3.3 3.3 0.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 33333><
3.3 3.3 3.3 0.3 3.3 3.3 u.m 5.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 303333303 .33303 309
3.3 3.3 3.3 S 3.3 2 3.3 E 323 3.3 2 3333a .3332 .393
3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 T3 3.3 0.3 3.3 3.3 «.3 3.3 83:33.... .3332 330.3
3.3 m.m. 3.3 0.3 m.3 m.3 3.3 «.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 m.m ow333><
3.3 o.m 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 n.m 303333303 .3333 3303333
3.3 0.3 3.3 3.m m.m m.n 3.3‘ m.m “.3 3.3 3.3 awn 30330333 .3333 3303333
.M4 3 m w .33 .3 m n .3. o m 4
0600 anewad mdoo anawqd odoo adadcd
333om3 3003 3333333203 ape

 

andmd nm¢om<o

 

.mudpmnomaop qunmuqa o om on cmxooo nummou
.mm 33333

no nouoom uo>wam o®mum>¢

o

122

 

 

 

3.0 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.3 3.m m.m 3.0 3.m 3.“ 0.3 m.m 0333033
0.3 3.3 0.3 0.0 3.0 3.m m.m 3.0 m.m 0.3 3.3 0.3 303300003 .333 003303
m.n m.m o.m m.m 3.m 0.m 0.m 3.m m.m m.m 0.3 3.N 030033 .333 003303
3.m m.m 3.3 m.m 3.0 3.3 0.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.3 m.m 30330330 .333 003303
3.3 3.3 3.3 3.m 0.3 0.3 3.3 m.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 3030323 3303 33333
3.0 3.0 3.3 3.0 3.m 0.0 3.n N.n 3.3 3.3 0.3 3.n 0303033
0.0 m.m 3.3 0.0 3.0 3.3 0.0 3.0 0.3 3.3 0.3 0.0 303303003 .03303 303
0.3 3.3 3.0. 3.0 3.3 0.0 3.0 3.3 0.3 0.3 3.3 3.0 030033 .03303 303
3.3 0.3 0.3 3.3 0.3 0.3 3.3 3.3 0.3 3.3 3.3 3.3 30330333 .03303 0.03
m.m 0.m. m.3 0.m 3.3 3.m 3.3 3.3 0.3 3.3 m.3 0.3 03030><
m.m 3.3 0.3 3.3 0.3 m.3 0.3 0.3 3.3 3.0 3.3 0.3 303303003 .3333 3303333
0.0 3.0 3.m 0.0 N.m 0.0 m.m 3.m 3.0 m.3 3.3 0.0 30330330 .3333 3303330
.03 3 m 0 .33 3 m 3 .33 0 m 3
0300 303333 0000 303333 0000 333333
303030 3000 3330333200 330

 

qumo mm¢om¢o

.03530339803 30330333 0 com 03 cmxooo 030003

30 003000 «moc3oadn owd33>4

.wm wands

 

123

 

 

 

 

andmu mm<om<o

.03530303503 30330333 0 00m 03 vmxoco 030003
.0m 03303

mo 003000 oondnmommm mwxua><

msn 0.0 9m 0A 3.3 0.0 03.: 3.: 0.: 0.0 0.3 0.n 0.003030
0.: 3.0 3.3 n.m 0.: 3.0 m.m 3.m 3.0. 3.m 0.m 0.0 303303003 .333 003303
m.n u.m 3.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 m.m 0.: 3.0 0.0 m.m 0.m 03003.3 .333 003303
3.0 m.m 0.0 m.m 0.0 0.n 0.: 0.0 m.n 0.3 3.3 0.N 30330330 .333 003303
0.0 3.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 3.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 3.: 3030330 0303 03330
m.a 3.: 0.3 3.0 0.3 3.: 0.m 0.3 0.0 0.0 3.3 0.m 00030><
0.0 0.0 3.3 3.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.0 3.3 0.: 303303000 .03003 003
m.m m.m 0.: u.m m.m m.m 0.m 0.: 0.3 0.0 m.m 0.m 030038 .03303 009
0.3 3.3 0.3 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.m 30330330 .03003 003
0.0 3.m 3.0 0.0 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.0 0.3 0.3 m.m m.m 0003033
m.m 0.0 3.0 0.0 0.3 0.0 0.0 0.3 3.0 3.0 m.m 0.0 303303003 .3303 0303330
m.m m.m 0.m 0.0 0.3 m.m 0.3 0.0 0.m 0.0 m.m 0.0 30330330 .3303 3303330
wwa H m u .34 h a a .33 o m 4

0000 303300 0000 303333 0000 303334

303030 0000 3030333300 330

12h

 

 

 

 

000000 mo wonoom ohdaNop omauw><

fin4m¢ mm<om<o

.09500009600 Hacnopqa o

000 00 000000
.00 00000

0.: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.: 0.: 0.: 0.0 0.: 0.: 0.0 0.: 0000000
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.: 0.0 0.: 0.0 :.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.: 000000000 .000 00HH00
0.: 0.0 0.0 :.m 0.: 0.: 0.: 0.0 :.: 0.: m.m 0.0 000000 .000 00aaom
m.: 0.: 0.: 0.m :.: m.m 0.: 0.: m.: n.: :.: m.: 00000000 .900 uoaaom
0.0 0.0 0.0 H.m 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.:. 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 A000030 0000 00000
0.0 0.: 0.0 0.0 0.: 0.: «.0 0.: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.: 0000000
0.0 0.: 0.0 0.0 0.: 0.: 0.: :.0 0.0 :.0 0.0 0.0 000000000 .00000 000
0.: 0.: 0.: 0.0 0.: 0.: 0.: 0.0 «.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0H0000 .0000“ 00a
0.0 0.0 m.m H.0 0.0 H.m 0.0 . m.m 0.: 0.: H.m 0.: 00000000 .0qsou nos
0.: :.: 0.: 0.: :.0 :.0 «.0 0.: 0.: 0.0 0.0 :.: 0000004
0.: 0.: 0.: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.: 0.: 0.: m.m 0.: 000000000 .0000 0000000
0.: 0.: 0.: 0.: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.: 00000000 .0050 0000000
~00 a m 0 .04 m a a .04 0 m 4
0000 000004 0000 000000 0000 002004
000000 0000 A<H0000200 000

 

if 1.0.

 

 

 

Edi
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0000000
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000000.00 .000 00000m
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0. 0.0 0.0 0.: 000000 .000 000000
N.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 :.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 00000000 .000 000000
0.0 0.0 0.0 :.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0000030 0000 00000
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.: 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0000000
«w m.m m.“ o.w 5.5 m.: m.m “.0 0.: 5.0 0.0 :.m 0.0 000000009 .0:500 008
l
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000000 .00000 000
0.0 :.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.: :.0 0.0 00000000 .00000 000
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 .0.0 0000000
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 :.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 000000000 .0000 0000000
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.: 00000000 .0000 0000000
.04 0 m 0 .00 0 m 0 .00 0 m 4
0000 00.0004 0000 00000:. 0000 000000.
000000 0000 0400000200 0p0

 

mn<mo wm<om<o

.mn oapds

.oudpaummgmu H0Q00020 0 com on cwxooo
000000 no 000000 0000000200 ommum>4

 

 

 

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0000000
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 n.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 000000000 .000 000000
m.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.m0 000000 .000 000000
0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 00000000 .000 000000
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000000 0000 00000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000000
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 N.m0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 000000000.00000 000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 .0.00 0.00 0.00 000000 .00000 000
0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000000 .00000 000
0.0 0.0 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0000000
0.0 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.0 0.0 0.00 000000000 .0000 0000000
0.00 0.00 0.0 m.m0 0.00 0.0 0.00 0.m0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 00000000 .0000 0000000
wwm H m c .>< m a a .>< o m 4
0600 Hmsad< ouoo ama0c¢ Odom Hagan
000000 0000 :41 0400002000 000

 

mndmo mm<om<o

.whdpMHmmfimp Hmahoqu 0

mo 00000000 00000 000nm 0mmhm>¢

com cu dwxcoo 000000

.0: mapma

 

H

Ammmwv

 

a fi. _
. _

hug HAN mdnH: mdam howdh howdh.
hHoEmnp aha hug mefi mmocfiowdh adwwmz hOth knob hHoSme mmonHOHSh J

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.. .1 _
III. .!| 4

mzmno Mo .02 AMdOP nwmoa .mmeE” .mdam ‘ nausea Madcap

hHoEoHpMmm mgob AMdoB Hwfim mmmahmdnfichmez Hmcqoe hpo> hHothpanwmmaaornvE

. — .
punHm . H. “ -nuiu4
. Jhmnmmm:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-4-.-

‘tté. ‘4,,II
Mo :OdeHdgsw hmcwppw $Enflupmkmcwppm
msoer caom:1-z. mwhdoo ”mmhcoo w mchE _muHm

huwc39Hiisz havaoppxmm hHJHwodeoo defi mmmcquh E:vaz dawm

 

 

 

 

OHdpMQB

 

'I‘li‘l. I

was?“ m
mpfidw- ~
awed .
pJppHauiz- W
_

m

 

.
a

1'0

 

Q. ‘ll'llI'I.

wwucMH
cHo
muonpwt,

IIII. «‘ (.11

_ u
_

IIIIII.‘

 

m
m
_
m
_
_
V n
.3.5; u .
AUHH @ .
©030HH3R-§§: _

cHHa.

.
'1'! ‘ig’l'I-i ll”
~

_

_
.
.
.
_
_
m
_
.
_
_
.
pcuomJVHHHH _
moam uanH .
GBOHQ find Us» ”
:BOHp XHJw ” m
lint] — _
_
_
W
.
.
.
_
{I}! I.|Lns---|l.s

 

9"!

.-—~._— w...... ——-.—~ o. “p-fi-w-Q... .———

_ .HOLPRWH'H

 

iii .11.

I‘. '1'].

 

ooqmydogmd

 

 

agonp pgmHH _

fimwmhoh:lii.fl1

pnwdm:cti.
mcohpw

mhdnu

HHHE ........

. L Izli :!I.!:f:!.:;isa-c - +
Hn4h Hoom- poem” nmmmmm.- ilaLdem doom. doom .
Mm

m>HBmHmommH :Hp p oooj.p KANHoeirxm HHOHHW poem _gHafi_ omqam asHHaaIA coco mgop mmHmaonp
emu: Mommo o p H w m M m w 34,1;m m m m _ w . 0H M. muB.on

IlIIcIIcIIIt'llii‘ Iliiigfx Itf.--.r||.s 9- I - - - , . .11 :ILII! : i! L

 

 

 

_ .

 

maon

 

-._+....._..__.__._. 4r..- ..... ._.._.. ..-. -1...-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

t .I - ml 1 ! 1:33....I‘le szll. :I it. Ifnf- Q.I.I.....( t I! ‘ a ti.--

ill... ‘-, Ila‘ll...‘ I... (it'lliI'

 

wash

.oz HGSqu
pogoom . .oz 0H9.am

         

Hva mum HmHo mmwmm

 

r ‘iflfg
;wd$vi

UEL

INTER LL23? ‘ T .I’LGH

JA 3 '55

..—. --
'1'?)g' . ;an;