*—

 

 

0.
o

I |'
v o

.
I
I
o:
I
O O
I
r
-I
.l
I
' l
...
I
fit
I
.
l
‘a
.
.
l
o
I
J
4
:
I
VI
7
.
J
O
9
.
-.
.
'C
.
O
.,
.
J
O
s
.
.
‘.
V
.b
..

 

OI- aE§F~:--

c

 

m, 0"

 

4'
- l

  
  

 

 

 

..
. .
.
..
.I
I
I I
~
.
. .
.
.
_ - ,
-
. .
. 0 u- *
. -. -
- . I. —.
' .l . .
‘ l‘
I on
. -»v-
, .-. _
. ,,..--, -
' 3,...«v .._
— u» ,4
v .. - ~..-._ _<
. . .. .-
- '. ,... .
- ..'i I
- 0- O ’
. .

"" "-"—-'---_.:»-.-.

I
....
Q
4
- v
v
-
‘.
o-"
,0
I
I
u
I
w
.
t

I
‘I
s
pc-
I
I
n

C

a -
o
‘ ".c
--.-
1. ‘
.. -
o
I
-- . a
. 7. -
I
I
)
I-
. .. .
'— . . .
o
..I
I” I‘ _
o
- - .
.0
.
I
. . , ..
l
‘ _
I . .1
u
v
¢
.
I ,
.
.
' .
.
c
..
A
l
. .
.n
..
.- .
. . .
-
— -.
~o
-- , I

~
.

 

 

.
b
a
' v-

' O
' .v

,v

I

v-
- o

r _

‘ .-
' ' v.

. ‘ s -
~. .

.. - .
‘ D

- -_ .
-.

‘ r

' v
.

‘1‘. .

' ‘ ‘

.

-. .

' I

1'.
t '.
|I
.V
I ,.
‘V

183315

 

310570 6612

r—‘rfiw—r

IllfllflllflWflllflflll1Ifllflflfllfllflflflflflflfll I. _ '_.

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Longiasimus Dorsi of Three Grades of Beef: Comparison
of Cooking Weight Losses. Palatability, and Edible
Portion.

presented by

Jennie C. Day

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M . s..._ degree in—EoneJconomics

w/W

filajor professor

Date July 9. 1953

 

0-169

 

 

-'

mp" EBB;

 

 

rLONGISSIMUS DORSI OF THREE GRADES OF BEEF: COMPARISON OF
COOKING WEIGHT LOSSES, PALATABILITY AND EDIBLE PORTION

By
Jennie 0. Day

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

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Institution Administration

School of Home Economics

1953

9

GW’J

V!
{A}

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to express sincere appreciation
to Dr. Pearl J. Aldrich and Professor Katherine M. Hart
for their guidance, assistance, interest and encourage-
ment throughout the planning and accomplishment of this
study. Grateful acknowledgment is extended also to
Dr. Pearl J. Aldrich, Robert J. Deans, Mrs. Kathryn E.
Gardner, Dr. Pauline C. Paul, James R. Stiles, John E.
Thomas and Miss Helen L. Widick for their participation
on the taste panel. Appreciation is expressed to Dr.
William D. Baten for his counsel throughout the
statistical analyses of the data. The assistance of
Robert F. Herron in obtaining the meat samples used in

this study is also gratefully acknowledged.

TABLE OF C ON TENTS

INTRODUCTION . . . .
REVIEW OF LITERATURE . . . . . . . .
Palatability Factors . .
Aroma and flavor . . . . . .
Appearance and texture . . .
Tenderness and shear force .
Juiciness and press fluid . .
Cooking Losses . . . . . . . .
Methods of Evaluating Palatability
Subjective methods . . . . .
Objective methods . . . .
Combination of subjective and
methods . . . . . . .
Cost of Edible Portion . . . .
METHOD OF PROCEDURE . . . . . . . .
Preparation of Longissimus Dorsi .
Dissection from carcass . . .
Division into four cuts . . .
Freezing and storage of cuts
Cooking of Cuts . . . . . . .

Defrosting of cuts . .
Roasting process . . . .

Preparation of Samples .

Samples for shear force tests

of Meats
objective

0 O O 0

Samples for press fluid determinations.
Samples for palatability scoring . . .

53
54

Tests and Records

Shear force tests .
Press fluid tests .

Subjective tests
Cost of edible portion

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Palatability Factors . .

Cooking Weight Losses

Edible Portion Cost

Aroma and flavor
Appearance and texture
Tenderness and shear force

Juiciness and press fluid .

Total losses
Dripping losses
Volatile losses

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .

LITERATURE CITED

APPENDIX

Page
54

54
55

56
58
58

58
41

51
55
55
58
61
64
67

INTRODUCTION

The primary aim in institutional food service is to
provide foods of the highest quality in conformity with
budget allowances. Because the largest part of the food
dollar is Spent for meat, procuring and serving meat of ‘
satisfactory quality as economically as possible is of
utmost importance.

One of the most difficult problems in satisfying
(customers is the standardization of the serving portion.
Many people who would be willing to accept broken pieces
or chunks of meat at home demand well-cut, unbroken slices
when they eat in a commercial food\establishment and
complain about variation of size, shape. weight and
appearance of portions? The use of the longissimus
dorsi of beef. because of its relative uniformity in
size and shape. might offer a partial solution to this
serving problem.

The longissimus dorsi of beef is reputed to be one
of the more tender muscles of the carcass. Portions of
this muscle of several U.S. grades are available from

many of the meat packing companies. Since U.S. Good

grade has been widely accepted as satisfactory for

-1-

roasts in large quantity food service. the longissimus
dorsi of this grade was used in this study as a basis
for comparison with lower grades.

This study was planned to obtain information about
the cooking weight losses, palatability and the edible
portion cost of the longissimus dorsi of U.S. Good.
Commercial and Utility grades of beef. -

It is hOped that the results of this study may be
sufficiently interesting and encouraging to stimulate
further study of a similar nature using even lower
grades of beef. The information gained from this study
may also be of interest and of value to those who are
confronted with the challenge of serving uniform

portions of palatable meat at moderate cost.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Palatability Factors

Extensive research has shown that many factors
influence the palatability of meat. Some of the important
factors are market class or age and sex. care and diet of
the animal. Methods of processing and cooking have also
been found to influence the palatability of meats.

Arom

Branaman, Rankine and Alexander (10), from their
study of the relation of the degree of finish in cattle
to meat flavors, reported increases in scores for intensity
and desirability of the lean and juice of meat with
increased fatness.

From a study of the influence of retarded growth on
flavor and other characteristics of lamb, Barbells,
Hankins and Alexander (5) pointed out that the lean meat
from well-fed animals was strikingly superior in flavor
to meat from poorly fed animals. Barbells and co-workers
(6) used 728 beef rib roasts to study the relationships
of flavor and juiciness of beef to fatness and other
factors. They reported a range of fat percentages from

7.5 to 57.5 in these roasts. They considered fatness,

age, breeding and sex of the animal as important factors
influencing the flavor of meat.

Deatherage and Rieman (29), in their report of the
Tenderay process, stated that there was danger of inducing
off-flavors in ripening meats.

The effect of storage conditions on the palatability
of beef was studied by Griswold and Wharton (34). They
found that meat aged 37 days had somewhat stronger aroma
and flavor than meat aged 9 days. Paired rounds of Good
grade steer were stored at 17° C (35° F) and checked at
intervals up to 18 days in a study by Paul, Lowe and
McClurg (58) to determine changes in the histological
structure and palatability of beef during storage. They
reported improvement in aroma and flavor to the 9th day
but found decreases in scores for these characteristics
with further aging of the meat. The decreases in aroma
and flavor scores were attributed to the development of
gaminess in the lean and rancidity in the fat. From
another similar study by Hanson, Stewart and Lowe (59),
in which broilers were stored for a period of 118 hours,
no change in aroma and flavor was reported at the end
of 18 hours of storage. They observed decreases in

scores for aroma and flavor after 40 hours and found

.llll II II III-'1 I ll llllll ‘I‘ I

 

aroma and flavor of the broilers to be undesirable after
90 hours of storage.

Harrison (41), from the study of the histological,
physical, and organoleptic changes in beef during aging,
observed that the greatest improvement in palatability
occurred during the first 10 days of ripening at a
temperature of 34° to 36° F. The beef developed a musty
odor and a high flavor between 20 and 30 days of storage.

When meats were cooked with skewers, either covered
or uncovered, no difference in the taste of the interior
of the roasts was noted by Morgan.and Nelson (47).

Lowe (46) stated that the flavor of fat was primarily
reSponsible for differences in flavor noted between the
species, pork, lamb, beef, chicken and turkey.

Bull (15) pointed out that, although bull and stag
beef does not have the extremely disagreeable odor and
flavor found in boar meat, these animals constitute the
least desirable class of beef. .The meat from bull and

stag beef has a sweetish taste.

Appearance and texturg
Although appearance is not necessarily a guide to
quality in meat, Hankins (56) commented that it is always

a psychological factor. In some cases, appearance is

 

l‘llll'v
lllllllll‘u‘l'll’ llllIlllI

-5-

associated with characteristics of quality which are of
real importance in judging quality of meat. He suggested
that color is usually outstanding among the factors
contributing to appearance of meats.

Bull (15) pointed out that judging the quality of
any kind of meat by observation takes more experience
than most consumer-buyers have. He continued that meats
which are graded according to specifications and stamped
with the grade name give the benefit of expert and un-
prejudiced judgment to the ineXperienced buyer. Standards
for market classes and grades of livestock are included
in his book, Meat for the Table. These standards have
also been described in government publications

Brady (9), from his study of the factors influencing
the texture and tenderness of beef, reported that texture
was dependent on the size of the fiber bundles in the
muscles. He observed that the larger fiber bundles
seemed to be characteristic of finer texture. Grindley
and Sprague (53), in their study of a precise method for
roasting beef, described in detail the characteristics
of beef roasted to three stages of doneness. They attri-
buted the differences in appearance of samples at varying

degrees of doneness to changes in color and texture.

 

1 I I .

Descriptive terms of rose red, light pink and brownish
grey were used by them to indicate the progressive stages
of doneness. They pointed out that the texture became
more compact and the appearance less moist as internal
temperatures of the roasts increased.

From the results of work done with pork loins, Clark
(18) found that roasts which were seared had a better
general appearance than those which were cooked by constant
oven temperature. She used an oven temperature of 482° F
(250° c) for so minutes to sear and 320° F (160° 0) to
finish the roasts cooked by the searing method. An oven
temperature of 520° F (1600 C) was used throughout for
roasts cooked by constant temperature method.

The effect of cold storage and freezing on the
longissimus dorsi of beef was studied by Orr (SO).
She reported little or no difference between scores
for appearance of steaks kept in cold storage or in
frozen storage. The temperature used for the cold
storage treatment was 7.80 C (46° F). For the freezing
treatment the muscles were frozen at -26° C {-150 F)
and stored at 0° C (52° F) in this investigation. Orr'
pointed out that judges described the appearance of

cooked samples from frozen steaks as dark and dry on

 

II II ||.1 I1 | 1 ll

the surface. Aldrich (1). from her investigation of the
effect of the extent of cooking on U.S. Choice and U.S.
Good pot roasts, concluded that appearance of the Choice
cuts was scored slightly higher than of the Good cuts
from roasts held an hour at 1500 C after they reached
90° C internal temperature.

For studies on veal, Paul and McLean (55) used two
pairs of legs from U.S. Good carcasses which weighed 50,
125 and 200 pounds. Roasts from these legs were cooked
by constant oven temperature of 165° C (525° F) to internal
temperatures of 71°, 77°, 82° and 88° 0 (160°, 170°, 1800
and 190° F). These workers found that small roasts were
quite pink at the lower internal temperatures and that the
medium and large size roasts turned grayish brown at the
higher internal temperatures. They indicated that both pink
and brown are undesirable in the appearance of roast veal.

Morgan and Nelson (47) reported that meat from
skewered roasts was more appetizing and juicy in appearance
than meat from roasts cooked without the use of skewers.
They found no difference in the appearance of the interiors
of roasts cooked well done in covered pans and those cooked
well done in uncovered pans. In some cases, they noted charring

of the outer fat when the roasts were cooked uncovered.

"Pe0ple buy with their eyes”, stated Crist and Seaton
(26). These workers emphasized that frequently the ap-
pearance of a food will be the determining factor in its
acceptability even though other characteristics of quality
and palatability are satisfactory. Appearance alone may
be cause for rejection of food by the consumer, they

concluded.

Tendepness and Shea; force

Tenderness is one of the most important of the
palatability factors. Deatherage and Rieman (29) stated
that consumers desired flavor and tenderness in meat more
than any other qualities. They pointed out that although
meat may have good flavor, it is still undesirable if it
is tough.I Bull (15) commented that many pe0ple, eSpecially
women, regard tenderness as the most important factor
contributing to palatability of meats. He attributed the
popularity of tenderloin steaks mainly to tenderness.

The importance of tenderness was also emphasized by

Hankins (56), who commented that, excepting unwholesomeness,
there is no attribute of meat more of a liability than
toughness.

According to the committee of the National C00perative
Meat Investigations (48), tenderness of meat is affected

-10-

by the proportion of fat to lean, the age and activity of
the animal from which it was obtained, the extent of action
of the natural proteolytic enzymes contained in the meat
during aging, the ripening period and temperature, freezing
treatments and the methods and temperatures of cooking.

Ten animals were used by Griswold and Wharton (54)
in the study of the effect of storage on the palatability
of beef. They reported the variation between animals to
be greater than that between the different grades according
to mechanical tests for tenderness. However, the differences
in tenderness of meat aged for 7 and 57 days were not sig-
nificant either for judges'scores or for the shearing
machine results. Steiner (57) also found the effect of
ripening on tenderness to vary greatly from one animal to
another and to vary with the sex and age of the animal.

Paul, Lowe and MCClurg (58), using paired rounds from
Good grade yearling steers stored at 1.7° C (550 F) for
l, 2, 4, 9 and 18 day periods, studied the changes during
storage. They reported progressive increases in tenderness
.as indicated by panel scores and shear force tests during
the storage period.

Porterhouse steaks were used by Hiner and Hankins

(45) to determine the tenderizing effect of aging. They

found that steaks aged 55 days at 54° F were 28 per cent
more tender than those aged 5 days at 54° F. They observed
that steaks aged for 5 days-at 54° F and then frozen at
-10° F were as tender as beef ripened 55 days at 54° F.

In another study these same investigators (45) used
paired short loins of beef and observed that storage at
54° F had less tenderizing effect than freezing. They
stated that beef frozen at 20° F was approximately 12 per
cent more tender and beef frozen at -10 or -400 F was
18 per cent more tender than beef ripened at 54° F. They
discovered no significant difference in the tenderizing
effect of freezing between loins frozen at -40° F and
those frozen at -lO° F.

Semitendinosus muscles from the round of beef were
cooked to an internal temperatuhe of 58° C by Child and
Satorious (17). They found no difference in the shear
force tests among these roasts cooked by constant oven
temperatures of 125°, 150°, 175° and 2000 C. However,
shear force results for standing rib roasts, cooked as
described, were reported to be slightly higher when the
roasts were cooked at the 200° C oven temperature than
when they were cooked at the lower temperatures. When

,pork loins were cooked to an internal temperature of

-12-

84° C.by constant oven temperatures of 125° C, 150° C and
175° C, Child and Satorius (17) found lowest shear force
readings for the roasts cooked by the lowest temperature.
They concluded that lower shear force readings were
attributable to lower oven temperatures and that higher
shear force readings resulted from the effect of higher
oven temperatures on the muscle proteins.

Cover (25) found that the use of skewers in paired
round-bone chuck roasts of beef decreased cooking time
and losses but increased the toughness of the cooked cuts.
Another study by the same investigator (24) was conducted
to determine the effect of extremely low rates of heat
penetration on the tenderness of beef. It was found that
roasts were always tender when the rate of heat penetration
was slow enough to require 50 hours for the interior of
the meat to lose the pinkness. Roasts cooked at 80° C
were mealy and dry, because of excessive evaporation,
whereas roasts cooked at 125° C were juicier but less
tender.

In a further study, in which the relationship of oven
temperature and tenderness was investigated, Cover (25)
used constant oven temperatures of 1250 C and 225° C to

roast meat to an internal temperature of 80° C. She

-13-

reported that round-bone chuck and rump roasts of beef
and half ham roasts of pork were more tender when cooked
at 125° 0 than when cooked at 225° 0. No tenderness
difference was shown in medium rare rib and chuck roasts
cooked at the same temperatures, and relatively small
differences in total cooking time were observed. Cover
eXplained that the tenderizing effect noted in roasts
cooked at the lower temperature probably resulted not
from oven temperature alone but from the combination
effect of longer cooking period and lower cooking temper-
ature.

Extensive research was carried out by Ramsbottom
and co-workers (54) on the comparative tenderness of
fifty individual muscles, which weighed one pound or
more each, from beef carcasses. They concluded that
thirty-five of the fifty muscles studied became less
tender with cooking according to the judges' scores and
shear force tests. They attributed this decreased
tenderness to coagulation and denaturation of the muscle
proteins and to the varying degrees of shrinkage and
hardening of muscle fiber. They emphasized that the
amounts of collagenous and elastic connective tissue

in the muscle also influenced the tenderness of the

-14-

cooked muscle. Tenderizing effect of the hydrolysis of
the collagen was not sufficiently great to nullify this
toughening effect. These investigators (58), using
samples from eight muscles, found no relationship between
the amount of fat within the muscle and shear force
results for raw or cooked samples. Hankins and Ellis
(57), using sixty-nine grainefed cattle, substantiated
these findings and concluded that variations in tenderness
were caused mainly by factors other than fatness.

Animals varying in age from 2.5 months to 5.5 years
were used in a study by Hiner and Hankins (45) to determine
the effect of the age of the animal on the tenderness of
the meat. They found a decrease in tenderness with an
increase in the age of the animal. They found that tender-
ness was not associated with grade to any appreciable
extent in the comparison of 8 Choice, 9 Good and 8 Commercial
steers which ranged from 14 to 18 months in age.

J 8 s 1

Alexander and Clark (5) reported findings on the
effect of grade on palatability and cooking weight losses
.from a study of 595 rib roasts from U.S. Choice, Good,
LMedium and Common grade beef carcasses. They pointed out

'that fat content is one of the most important factors in

-15-

determining grade and that usually the higher grades are
associated with higher fat content of the carcass. They
reported that roasts cooked with the bone in were juicier
than comparable boned and rolled roasts. These findings
were substantiated by Child and Esteros (15) who found
that standing rib roasts were juicier than comparable
boned roasts when they were tested by a pressometer or
scored for juiciness.

From their study on the effect of exterior temperature
on the juiciness of beef, Child and Satorius (1?) concluded
that external temperatures do not affect the juiciness
scores or press fluid results in comparable cuts of meat
cooked to the same stage of doneness.

Child and Fogarty (16), in their study of the effect
of interior temperature of beef muscle upon the press
fluid, reported that 11 per cent more press fluid was
obtained from roasts cooked to an internal temperature
of 58° C than from roasts cooked to an internal temperature
of 75° C. Child and Esteros (15) reported that increases
in the degree of doneness were related directly to decreases
in juiciness. From the study of the effect of different
internal temperatures on veal, Paul and McLean (55) found

decreases in juiciness as the internal temperatures in

-16...

the roasts increased. Noble, Halliday and Klass (49)
found that standing rib roasts cooked to 61° C were some-
what more juicy than those cooked to 75° C internal
temperature.

Cline, Loughead and Schwartz (22) found increased
juiciness related to higher grades ofmeat in their study
of steaks from U.S. Good and Medium grades of heifers,
cows and steers.

Using skewers to Speed the roasting of meat, Morgan
and Nelson (47) found that skewered roasts were more juicy
than unskewered roasts which were cooked to the same
internal temperature by the same oven temperature. Roasts
from the top rounds of beef were cooked to an internal
temperature of 82° C by a constant temperature oven and
by pressure sauce pans in the study by Clark and Van Duyne
(19). They reported that roasts cooked in the oven were
juicier than those cooked in the pressure sauce pans.

Griswold and Wharton (54) found that beef aged 9 days
‘was more juicy than beef stored 57 days at 0° C. Little
‘variation in juiciness scores of the roasts stored from
l.to 20 days was found by Harrison (40). After 50 days
Iof aging, the juiciness scores dropped below those of
'the shorter aging periods. Harrison concluded that

-17-

evaporation of the fluids in the roasts during storage
was great enough to reflect in the juiciness scores of
the cooked roasts.

Variation in juiciness from muscle to muscle was
evident from the study by Harrison (40). She found the
roasts from the psoas major muscle to be most juicy and
those from the semitendinosus to be least juicy of the
muscles studied. Juiciness scores for the longissimus
dorsi were intermediary. Paul and co-workers (52) found
highly significant differences in juiciness among roasts
from different muscles. They also found the roasts from
the psoas major muscle to be the most juicy and roasts
from the semitendinosus to be the least juicy.

Paul, Lowe and McClurg (58) reported a gradual
increase in juiciness scores during the 18 days of aging
paired rounds from a U.S. Good yearling steer carcass.
They pointed out, however, that the press fluid decreased
and then increased sharply during storage, indicating
changes in the waterbinding powers of the proteins and
the permeability of the cell membranes. Hanson, Stewart
and Lowe (59) concluded that juiciness of fowl was not
affected by storage at 0-2.2o C (52-350 F) during a

storage period of 118 hours.

-18-

Cooking Losses

One of the earliest investigations of meat cookery
in this country was reported by Wood (61) in 1869. He
wrote that it was interesting and worthwhile t0vremember
that a hotter fire should be used to roast the smaller
cuts of meat. He believed that an intensely hot fire
coagulated the exterior and thereby prevented the drying
of the meat juices. He stated that shrinkage in a roast
of meat during cooking was chiefly the result of water
loss. Griaflay and Mojonnier (52), in 1904, commented
that the losses in the roasting of meat were attributable
chiefly to the removal of fat and water and that higher
cooking temperatures generally resulted in greater losses.

Clark (18) pointed out that pork loins, when seared,
shrank more and cooked faster than when they were cooked
by constant oven temperature. She indicated that the
increased losses were attributable mainly to the render-
ing of more fat from the roasts during cooking. Using
three cuts of beef cooked to the well-done stage, Cover
(24) found the total cooking losses were about the same
when oven temperatures of 80° C and 125° C were used.

Results of extensive cooking tests on 185 legs of

lamb and mutton were reported by Alexander and Clark (5).

-19-

The variables which they studied were grade, length of
ripening period and cooking methods. They found that
cooking losses were lowest in roasts cooked at 125° C
constant oven temperature. Losses from the roasts cooked
by constant temperature at 175° C were greater than from
those which were seared at 260° C for 20 minutes and than
were finished at 125° C. These investigators concluded
that smaller losses occurred when the average oven temper-
ature was low, regardless of the procedure used for
roasting. Additional studies in 1959 by the same investi-
gators (4), based on 595 rib roasts of beef, gave further
evidence that greater shrinkage of roasts was not dependent
upon searing as such but upon higher average oven tempera-
tures.

In experiments to observe the effect of metallic
skewers on cooking time, Morgan and Nelson (47) used
constant oven temperatures of 150° C, 175° C and 250° C.
They concluded that the loss of weight during cooking was
not greatly increased by the higher external temperatures.
They explained that the shorter cooking time required
when higher temperature was used probably served to
counterbalance the losses generally attributed to the

effect of higher temperature as such.

-20-

Studies were conducted by Child and Satorius (17) to
determine the effect of exterior temperature upon the
press fluid, shear force and cooking losses of roasted
beef and pork muscles. Results indicated that cooking
losses in beef were greater when the meat was prepared
by roasting at constant temperatures of 2000 and 175° C
or by searing at 260° C for 20 minutes and finishing at
150° C than when they were cooked at 150° C constant
temperature. Weight losses of pork loins cooked to an
'internal temperature of 84° C by the same methods just
described were not affected by the external temperatures.
They suggested that cooking losses of beef were increased
with higher oven temperatures because of excessive evapo-
ration. Cline and co-workers (2T), after studying
different classes and grades of beef cooked by different
oven temperatures, indicated that higher external tempera-
tures increased the total cooking losses. Cline and
Foster (20) found that low oven temperatures gave less
loss than high oven temperatures.

Paired beef roasts were cooked by constant tempera-
ture of 125° C to the well-done stage in an experiment
to show the effect of the use of metal skewers. Cover

(25) reported that the roasts into which copper skewers

-21..

were inserted cooked in.less time and with smaller losses
than roasts cooked without skewers. A similar study by
Morgan and Nelson (47), indicated a marked decrease in
cooking time and cooking losses with the use of skewers
in roasts. Aldrich (1) found an appreciable continued
weight loss in both U.S. Good and U.S. Choice pot roasts
held an additional hour at 150° C, after they had reached
an internal temperature of 90° C.

The stage of doneness may have greater influence on
shrinkage than the specific oven temperature used, according
to Alexander and Clark (5). The shrinkage of lamb legs
cooked to an internal temperature of 85° C was not
significantly different whether they were cooked by
constant temperatures of 125° C and 175° C or were seared
at 260° C for 20 minutes and finished at 125° C. These
investigators (4) in a similar study found that, even
with low oven temperatures, it was not possible to cook
meat well-done and keep shrinkage low. As early as 1904
Gritflley and Mojonnier (52) commented that, in cooking meats
by roasting, the losses increased in pr0portion to the
degree of doneness. From work done at the University of
North Dakota, Latzke (44) reported that cooking losses
varied with the degree of doneness. She indicated that

-22-

average percentage cooking losses for beef were 16.8 for
rare roasts, 18.06 for medium roasts and 22.5 for well-
done roasts.

Alexander and Clark (4) found that among roasts
classified according to grade, those in the higher grade
usually showed smaller evaporation losses and larger
dripping losses, regardless of the style of cutting or
the method of cooking. Black, Warner and Wilson (7)
reported that meat from supplement-fed steers showed
less evaporation during cooking than did meat from thinner
grass-fed cattle. There were more drippings from the
fatter animals than.from the thinner cattle. Helser,
Nelson and Lowe (42), at Iowa State College, found that
fatter roasts had a greater amount of drippings. Thille,
Williamson and Morgan (59) agreed that total cooking
losses of fat roasts were greater than those of lean
roasts because of the large amount of fat rendered
~during cooking. However, volatile losses were reported
by these workers to be less in the fat roasts than in

the lean roasts.

-23..

Methods of Evaluating Palatability of Meats

Subjectiye methods
The problems involved in evaluating subjective tests

for food acceptance have been pointed out by many investi-
gators. Eating qualities 0f food are evaluated principally
through impressions on the sensory organs.

Some of the problems of subjective testing were pointed
out by Halliday (55), who stated that subjective tests do
not provide reproducible results. Tanner, Clark and
Hankins (58) also suggested that the influence of one
palatability factor upon another presents one of the
greatest obstacles to accurate grading of a single factor
of palatability. The psychological and physiological
factors affecting food acceptability were discussed by
Bogga and Hanson (8), Lowe and Stewart (46), Dove (50)
and Crocker (27). Ovarman and L1 (51), concerned with
the problem of the dependability of subjective scores,
established an analysis of food tasting panels to determine
the dependability of the judges' scores.

Because of the need for standardizing procedures in
taste-testing work, the Bureau of Human Nutrition and
Home Economics sponsored a conference for the critical

appraisal of sensory methods for measuring food quality

by taste panel methods. Dawson and Harris (28) prepared
the bulletin which included the proceedings of the confer-
ence and an extensive review of literature on the subject.
Recommendations for subjective testing, evolved through
the combined efforts of the participants, are printed in
the bulletin. Important methods in planning organoleptic
tests to increase the validity and accuracy of panel scores
were outlined by Crist and Seaton (26), Lowe and Stewart
(46) and Dove (50).

Deepite the difficulties inherent in subjective
testing, it is still recognized as an important means of

determining food acceptability (25, 48).

Objegtiye methods

The need for mechanical and chemical methods for
measuring objectively the characteristics of quality has
been emphasized by Dove (50) and Crocker (27).

The Warner - Bratzler shear machine, or some modifi-
cation of it, has been found to be a satisfactory objective
'means of determining tenderness in meats. This shearing
apparatus measures the pounds of force required tocut
through a sample of meat of prescribed dimensions (11).

A high degree of correlation between taste panel scores
for tenderness and shear force readings has been established

by many investigators.

-25-

Noble, Halliday and kiass (49), using the New York
Testing Laboratory Penetrometer, found little difference
in the average tenderness values from the right and left
sides of wholesale rib cuts of beef when the cuts were
cooked in the same manner. A limited number of other
mechanical devices and chemical and histological methods
have been developed to determine tenderness of foods
objectively.

The objective measurement of the juiciness of meat
was deve10ped on the principle of expressing fluid from
meat samples of known weight. Child and Baldelli (14)
reported the development of apparatus called the Presso-
meter and the standardization of the method for determining
the percentage of press fluid and the ratio between it and
dry matter. These workers define press fluid as the fluid
consisting of moisture plus soluble material and the
colloidal fraction that is pressed from the muscle by
the pressometer. Aldrich (1) found good correlation
between the judges' scores for juiciness and the per-
centage of press fluid, determined by the Minnesota
pressometer, in muscles from Good and Choice grade beef
rounds which were cooked to 90° C internal temperature.

She found no significant correlation between press fluid

-25-

tests and juiciness scores for either the Choice or Good
grades when the pot roasts were cooked beyond an internal
temperature of 90° C.

Tanner, Clark and Hankins (58), from the results of
the work in which an apparatus Operated by hydraulic
pressure was used, admitted that the correlations between
judges' scores and the percentage of expressible juice of
three groups of samples were not significantly high.
However, the results were regarded as sufficiently
consistent to be encouraging. Tests on beef, lamb and
pork indicated that, although all samples had the same
percentage of press fluid, beef was consistently scored
highest and pork lowest in juiciness. The results for
press fluid tests for beef cooked to an internal temper-
ature of 58° C showed no close correlation with the judges'
scores for juiciness of these samples.

Only a limited number of objective tests have been
found satisfactory in determining the acceptability of
meats, and much more work is needed to develop additional
tests to supplement the subjective methods now used for

testing.

Combi ion of s ecti d ob a ti met 0 s
Dove (50) expressed the need to raise subjective

measures to a quantitative level. ”To judge the merit

-27-

and range of use of each and every objective test, we must
hunt out a scientific basis for our judgment by developing,
a method of measuring the subjective responses,“ Dove (50)
reported. In the end, all measures of the palatability

of a food are liable to the subjective reaponse. Dove (50)
recommended the subjective-objective approach to the study
of food acceptability.

Lowe and Stewart (46) emphasized that objective tests
for organoleptic qualities must measure the characteristics
which can be correlated with subjective evaluations of
acceptability. They pointed out the difficulties of
subjective tests but emphasized that they give information
concerning the acceptability of the product which cannot
be obtained in any other way at present.

Because of the recognized shortcomings of both
subjective and objective tests used separately, many
investigators have combined the two methods of determining
the acceptability of food.

Cost of Edible Portion

From the study of a precise method of roasting,
Gridley and Sprague (55) pointed out that roasts cooked
as quickly at 175° C (547° F) as at 195° 0 (582° F).
They emphasized that this information was important from

-28-

a practical standpoint, because the economy in fuel, a
contributing factor in the cost of the edible portion of
meat, was involved.

Alexander (2), from her study of the shrinkage of
roast beef in relation to the fat content and cooking
temperature, reported that shrinkage of meat during
cooking affected the quantity as well as the quality
of the cooked meat. She stated that shrinkage of meat
during cooking must be considered both in estimating
the number of servings and in determining the cost of
servings.

In a study at the University of Illinois 12 Prime,
16 Choice, 15 Good and 8 Utility carcasses were divided
into retail cuts. Each cut was divided into lean, fat
and bone and the percentage of each was determined.)
This information was compiled in the book, Meat for the
Table (15). Charts were constructed so that the com-
parative cost of a pound of lean from any out of each
of the grades could be easily calculated. The economy
of different retail cuts from the Same wholesale cut
was emphasized also (15).

Aldrich (1), from her study of the effect of the

extent of cooking on muscles from the round of beef,

-29-

found the cost of the cooked pot roasts to be $1.4026 per
pound for Good grade and 91.4751 for Choice grade when the
pot roasts were cooked to an internal temperature of 90° C.
The costs per pound of the same pot roasts cooked an
additional hour after reaching 90° C internal temperature
were 51.5081 for Good grade and 51.5460 for Choice grade.
Using 2.5 ounces as a standard size serving in calculating
the cost of edible portion, she pointed out the importance
of these slight differences in portion cost when they were
applied to the large number of portions often.used in
quantity food service.

From the study reported in 1945 by Dunnigan (51).
the cost per pound of edible meat for Choice grade was
found to be 5.5542 for bone-in roasts and 5.4256 for
boned roasts. For Utility grade, the cost per pound of
edible meat was 8.5298 for bone-in roasts and 8.5575 for
boned roasts. I

Brown (12) studied waste attributable to boning and
trimming of square-cut chuck and round of beef in dividing
the wholesale cuts into inside and outside retail roasts.
In addition, losses from oven roasting and slicing were
considered in the problem. She reported the cost of
edible round to be $.12 per pound more than that of chuck.
There was no preference for inside roasts over outside roasts

from either of the wholesale cuts indicated by Brown (12).

METHOD OF PROCEDURE
Preparation of Longissimus Dorsi

Di 8 ct 0 0m cas ,

For this study, one longissimus dorsi muscle was
dissected from three sides of beef carcass of each grade,
U.S. Good, U.S. Commercial and U.S. Utility.

The sides of beef, divided by the wholesaler according
to standard cutting procedure between the twelfth and
thirteenth ribs, were purchased from the Armour Packing
Company of Chicago and the Plankintdrn Packing Company
of Minneapolis. The sides of beef were aged 14 days
following slaughter at approximately 1.7° C (55° F)

before the muscles were dissected.

Division into fog; guts

Four cuts were prepared from the longissimus dorsi
muscle dissected from each side of beef. The division
of the muscle into four cuts was partially determined
by the separation of the sides into fore and hind quarters
by the packers. The part of the longissimus dorsi from
the hind quarter was divided into two roasts of approxi-

mately equal size, and the part of the muscle from the

-31-

fore quarter was divided so that the posterior cut was
comparable in size to the two roasts taken from the hind
quarter. The cut from the anterior or tip and of the

muscle was the smallest of the four cuts.

Freez d store of out

After the external sheath of connective tissue and
the fat covering were trimmed, the cuts were labeled,
individually wrapped in polyethylene bags and frozen at
approximately -12.2° C (+10° F). The cuts were stored
at ~12.2° C (wlO° F) until defrosting just prior to
cooking.- Storage periods for the frozen cuts used in

the experiment ranged from 5 days to 65 days.
Cooking of Cuts

Defrostipg of cuts
. The cuts were unwrapped and defrosted in a refrigerator
at 5° C (41° F) for 12 to 15 hours to an internal temperature
of approximately 0° C (52° F).1

The cuts were weighed on a torsion balance and measured
for length, width and depth. A thermometer was inserted
so that the bulb was at the center of each cut. Each cut

was placed on a trivet in a 12 by 18 inch pan of 18 gauge

stainless steel.

-32-

Roasping procgss

The meat was cooked in a thermostatically controlled
Hot Point electric oven, built with open fire brick bottom.
Taylor oven thermometers were used to check the oven
temperature. The cuts were cooked, uncovered, at constant
oven temperature of 149° C (500° F) to an internal temper-
ature of 80° 0 (176° F). ”

One cut from the same muscle location from each of
the three grades, U.S. Good, Commercial and Utility, was
roasted simultaneously in the same oven at each of the
twelve cooking periods.

Temperatures of both oven and meat thermometers were
recorded at 20 minute intervals until the internal temper-
ature of the meat had reached 75° 0 (167° F). Temper-
ature readings were then taken at more frequent intervals.
It was necessary to open the oven door to make the temper-
ature observations because the oven doors did not have A
glass windows.

The cooked roasts were weighed, and measurements of
their length, width and depth were taken. Drippings from
each roast were weighed. Volatile losses were calculated
by subtracting the sum of the dripping weight and the
cooked weight of each roast from the raw weight of each

roaSte

-33-

Preparation of Samples

The roasted cuts were allowed to cool at room
temperature for approximately 50 minutes before samples
were removed for the taste panel judges or the objective
tests. Approximately 0.5 inch was then removed from the
posterior and of each roast by cutting across the grain
with a sharp knife to produce a straight edge for machine
slicing. Another cut, parallel to the first was made
2.5 inches from the trimmed edge. Samples from this

2.5 inch section of roast were used for all tests.

Samples for shear force testing

A sample for testing tenderness on the Warner-Bratzler
Shear Machine was obtained from the center of the 2.5 inch
section of roast. This sample was cut with a l-inch metal
core with a sharp edge by using a rotating motion along
the grain of the meat. Care was taken to avoid connective
tissue in selecting the location for cutting the cylinder
of meat. The samples were kept in air tight jars approxi-

mately 5 or 4 hours before the shear force tests were made.

Sam 8 or a uid determination
Samples to be tested for press fluid with the Carver

Press were taken from the portion of the 2.5 inch section

of roast which remained after slices had been removed for
palatability tests. This sample was placed in an air-
tight half-pint jar and was held at approximately 17° C
(55° F) for 18 hours. The sample was removed from
refrigeration 1 hour before testing. The browned
surfaces and visible connective tissue were removed from
the portion, and the remaining muscle fiber was then
ground twice in a Number 2 Universal food chopper through
a plate perforated with 1/8” openings. The ground meat was
placed in a glass jar and mixed thoroughly by vigorous
shaking. A.25 gram sample of the mixture was used for

each test on the Carver Press.

Samples for palatability scoripg

Slices, approximately 0.25 inch thick, were cut from
the posterior end of the 2.5 inch section of roast with
a General Slicing machine, Model 225. Each judge received
a slice of meat from the same relative position in each
roast. Samples for palatability tests were labeled and
kept in small, individual polyethylene bags from the time
of cutting until scoring.

Tests and Records

Shear force testp,
Tenderness was objectively measured on the Warner-

Bratzler Shear Machine. This shearing apparatus measures

-35-

the pounds of force required for the blade to cut through
a sample of meat 1-inch in diameter. Five tests were made

on a cylinder from each roast.

‘Press_§1uig_test§

Juiciness was objectively evaluated by determining
the amount of fluid which could be expressed with a Carver
Press from 25 grams of the sample prepared for testing as
previously described. A double thickness of cheesecloth,
out about 5 inches in diameter, was arranged to form a
pouch in the bottom of the cylinder, 5.5 centimeters in
diameter. Two No. 2 filter papers, 5.5 centimeters in
diameter, were placed in the bottom of this cheesecloth
pouch. Four layers of ground meat, weighing approximately
6.25 grams each, were placed in the pouch and the layers
were separated by 5.5 centimeter filter paper. The top
layer was covered with two 7 centimeter filter papers
which had been pressed to form an inverted cap to fit in
the t0p of the cylinder. The edges of the cheesecloth
pouch were gathered and folded over the sample. The
plunger was placed in position on the sample, and the
cylinder was placed in the center of the platform of the
Carver Press.' The pressure exerted per square 1.25

centimeters was increased at intervals (as read from the

~56-

inside rim of the scale) according to the following
schedule: 1
1 minute at 5,000 pounds
1 minute at 7,500 pounds
4.5 minutes at 10,000 pounds
2.5 minutes at 12,000 pounds
1 minute at 15,000 pounds
4 minutes at 16,000 pounds

Spbjagpive tests

Each of six judges scored a sample from each roast.
The scoring was based on a scale ranging from 0 to 10 for
aroma, appearance, flavor, texture, tenderness and juiciness.
Desoriptive terms for each palatability factor were also
listed for checking by the judges.

Cost for edible portiog

Because the longissimus dorsi muscle of beef is not
sold as a separate wholesale cut, the cost of the indi-
vidual muscles used in this study was based on the market
price of stripped loin and the estimatadpercentage of the
strip loin which the longissimus dorsi represented. In
this study percentages allowed for trim from the full
wholesale cuts of strip loin were 40 for Good, 55 for

-37-

Commercial and 50 for Utility. On this basis the trimmed
longissimus dorsi constituted the following percentages

of the wholesale cut: 60 for Good grade, 65 for Commercial
grade and 70 for Utility grade.

Price quotations for June, 1952, were obtained from
Swift and Company, Armour and Company and Phaelzer Brothers
Company for stripped loin. The average of these three
quotations was used in calculating cost of the meat used.
The average market cost for the untrimmed strip loin and
the percentage of usable muscle were used to determine the
cost per pound of the uncooked longissimus dorsi muscles
for each grade. The cost per pound of the cooked meat was
calculated by dividing the total raw weight cost by the

total weight of the cooked roasts for each grade.

-58-

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Palatability Factors

Aroma and flavop

Aroma and flavor are considered important factors
in the acceptability of meat. The aroma is produced
principally by the action of heat upon the meat fibers
and fat, and the flavor resides mainly in the juices.
Aroma makes itsimpression on the taster first, and some
feel that it is even more important than flavor although
they are very closely associated.

Averages of aroma scores for all cuts for the three
animals of each grade are shown in Table 1 and Figure l.
A comparison of the average scores for grade shows 8.2
for Good, 7.5 for Commercial and 7.1 for Utility. The
range of scores within grade was 7.7 to 8.5 for Good,
6.7 to 8.0 for Commercial and 5.7 to 8.5 for Utility.

Analysis of variance of aroma scores indicated that
variation in aroma, attributable to grade, was significant
at the l per cent level of probability.

It is obvious from the average scores for aroma
that animal VIII was less desirable than any other
animal studied. The odor of animal VIII was described

-39-

TABLE 1

Average Aroma Scores of Cuts in Sequence
from the Anterior to the Posterior End
of the Longissimus Dorsi of Beef

 

 

 

.921
Animal l 2 5 4 Average
‘U.S. Good
I 8.5 7.8 7.7 8.5 8.1
II 8.5 8.5 8.5 8.0 8.5
III 8.0 8.2 8.2 8.5 8.2
Average 8.5 8.2 8.1 8.5 8.2

U.S. Commercial

IV 8. 0 7. 0 7. 8 7.8 7. 6

V 7.0 7.7. 7.5 6.7 7.2
VI 7.5 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.7
Average 7.5 7.5 7.7 7.4 7.5

U.S. Utility

VII 8.5 6.5 7.5 6.5 7.2
VIII 5.7 7.2 6.5 6.5 6.4
IX. 7.7 7.8 7.5 7.7 7.6
Average 7.5 7.1 7.1 6.8 7.1

 

AROMA SCORES

-40-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

WGOOd
Wmmerciol
51- 1
45 US Good US Commercial US Ulilit
. . . . y Grade More 5
0L 4 J 1 1 4 1 1 P 1 4 9e _}
Culs I 2 3 4 l 2 3 4 I 2 3 4 I 2 3 4
Figure l. Aroma Scores for Cuts in Sequence from
Anterior to Posterior End of the Longissimus
Dorsi of Beef. Grade Averages Include the
Scores for Cuts from Three Animals Within
Each Grade. Roman Numerals Indicate Animal
Numbers.
. n ' .
”1“ ./ .
B-I \
F’ {’ \ flGood
m . /' Commercial
3:” 7K m I V\
o
8 F N‘K-Murrt
1r 6- 1 1 y
o
i ' ‘ m
111 5 r- ;’ \\/
P \ I I
l- Va
4: U..S Good U.S. Commercial U.S. Utility Grade Averages (LI
0‘: 1 1 4 4 1 L L 1 l 1 J
Culs l - 2 3 4 l 2 3 4 I 2 3 4 l 2 3 4

Figure 2.

Flavor Scores for Cuts in Sequence from

Anterior to Posterior End of the Longissimus
Grade Averages Include the
Scores for Cuts from Three Animals Within

Dorsi of Beef.
Each Grade.

Numbers.

Roman Numerals Indicate Animal

-41-

by the judges as "fishy", "old stew meat“, ”strong” and
“foreign“. Excluding scores for animal VIII, the average
aroma scores for the Utility grade was 7.4, which is not
appreciably lower than the average aroma score of 7.5 for
the Commercial grade.

The average flavor score for Utility grade, excluding
animal VIII, was 7.0 which was the same as the average
flavor score for Commercial grade. (See Table 2). The
descriptive terms used for flavor of animal VIII included
“bitter", ”old", and terms previously mentioned in
describing aroma. One judge felt that the flavor was
”rare and metallic". Flavor scores in Table 2 and
Figure 2 point out differences among animals as well as
variations from one grade to another. The differences
in the average flavor scores were significant for animals
and for grades at the l per cent level of probability.
The average flavor scores according to grade were 7.7 for

Good, 7.0 for Commercial and 6.5 for Utility.

A a c a e t e

Inasmuch as most of the fat covering had been removed
from the cuts prior to cooking, the general external
appearance of all cooked roasts was similar. The surfaces
were dry and shiny, and distinct waviness of the muscle

fibers was visible.

Average Flavor Scores of Cuts in Sequence
from the Anterior to the Posterior End
of the Longissimus Dorsi of Beef

-42-

TABLE 2

 

 

 

Cut
Animal l 2 4 Average
U.S. Good
I '7.8 8.2 7.7 7.2 7.7
II 7.5 8.5 8.2 7.5 7.9
III 7.0 7.2 7 7 8.5 7.6
Average 7.4 7.9 7 9 7.7 7.7
U.S. Commercial
IV 7.2 6.5 8.0 7.5 7.2
V 7.8 6.8 6.5 6.7 6.9
VI 6.8 7.0 7.7 6.7 7.0
Average 7.5 6.8 7.5 6.9 7.0
U.S. Utility
VII 7.5 7.5 7.2 6.0 7.0
VIII 4.7 5.5 4.5 4.8 4.9
IX 7.5 6.0 6.5 7.7 6.9
Average 6.8 6.5 6.1 6.2 6.5

 

Light brown and grey brown were the terms most
frequently checked by the judges to describe the internal
appearance of roasts. There seemed to be no consistent
difference in appearance among animals, grades or cuts
with the exception of animal VIII which appeared to retain
an iridescent pinkness not found in the other animals.
There was no visible marbling in the roasts from this
animal. The meat of animal VIII, in both the raw and
cooked state, appeared very wet, slippery and soft in
comparison with meat from other animals used in this study.

Scores for appearance and texture are found in
Tables 5 and 4 and Figures 5 and 4. Analysis of variance
for scores for texture and appearance showed no significant

differences attributable to animals, grades or cuts.

Te e as d shear 0 ca

Comparison of the average tenderness scores and shear
force readings showed difference in tenderness among grades.
Average tenderness scores and shear force readings are
shown in Tables 5 and 6 and Figures 5 and 6.

Analysis of variance indicated that differences in
tenderness, measured both subjectively and objectively,
were attributable to grade and were significant at the

l per cent level of probability. Variations in tenderness

-44-

TABLE 5

Average Appearance Scores of Cuts in Sequence
from the Anterior to the Posterior End
of the Longissimus Dorsi of Beef

 

 

 

Cut
Animal 1 2 5 4 Average
U.S. Good
I 7.5 7.8 7.0 7.7
II 5.8 7.2 6.8 8.0
III 6.8 6.7 7.8 7.5
Average 6.7 7.2 7.2 7.7
U.S. Commercial
IV 6.8 7.0 7.7 6.8
‘V 7.0 7.5 7.0 7.5
V1 7.0 8.0 7.0 7.2
Average 6.9 7.5 7.2 7.1
U.S. Utility
VII 8.5 8.0 7.7 6.2
VIII 5.5 7.0 6.5 7.5
IX 7.5 6.8 7.7 7.8
Average ' 7.1 7.5 7.5 7.1

 

-45-

TABLE 4

Average Texture Scores of Cuts in Sequence
from the Anterior to the Posterior End
of the Longissimus Dorsi of Beef

 

 

 

Cut
Animal 1 2 5 4 Average
U.S. Good
I 7.2 7.5 7.0 7.0
II. 6.0 6.8 7.5 7.8
III 6.7 6.7 6.8 7.7
Average 6.6 6.9 7.1 7.5
U.S. Commercial
IV 6.7 6.8 7.7 7.5
V 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.2
VI 6.5 7.7 8.2 7.7
Average 6.8 7.5 7.7 7.4
U.S. Utility
VII 7.5 7.8 7.8 6.8
VIII 6.2 7.0 7.2 7.7
IX 7.7 6.8 7.5 7.8
Average 7.1 7.2 7.4 7.4

 

-45-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

 

 

HI 11
U) Br— I- I
11.1 . '
15 f1, ’. '/:</ 131' Good
0 .. ’ ‘ . / Util'il
w 7; ’I"‘v’ a“ Commercial
to t’ I ‘
0 ” I
.2. x I!
a: 5?
<1
“1 1-
8
<1 5r-
4 .
113 G 0 us. 'I .. "
Oi . . .°°'"'J""°'? ‘35 WW. ?'°°‘i"“1°°°’ a
Culsl 2 3412 3412 3 4| 2 34
Figure 5. Appearance Scores for Cuts in Sequence from
Anterior to Posterior End of the Longissimus
Dorsi of Beef. Grade Averages Include the
Scores for Cute from Three Animals Within
Each Grade. Roman Numerals Indicate Animal
Numbers.
1!
8 b I IE4 ; Commercials;
8 l- ’1’ '\ 600d
g 7f x’ ' 1111 Utility
w 3‘} '
m ,I—‘ir
(r 6!—
D
g.-
X r-
E
5r
l-
4.E U.S. Good U.S.Commerciol U.S. Utility Grade Averages j»
0 1 1 1 1 1 1 L l L 1 1 1
Culsl 2 3412 3412 34I 2 34
Figure 4. Texture Scores for Cuts in Sequence from

Anterior to Posterior End of the Longissimus
Dorsi of Beef. Grade Averages Include the
Scores for Cute from Three Animals Within
Each Grade. Roman Numerals Indicate Animal
Numbers.

-47-

TABLE 5

Average Tenderness Scores of Cuts in Sequence
from the Anterior to the Posterior End
of the Longissimus Dorsi of Beef

 

 

 

Cut
Animal l 2 5 4 Average
U.S. Good
I 7.5 8.0 7.5 7.7 7.6
II 7.5 8.2 8.2 7.5 7.8
III 6.7 7.8 8.2 8.5 7.8
Average 7.2 8.0 7.9 7.8 7.7
U.S. Commercial
IV 7.0 7.8 7.8 6.7 7.5
V 7.5 7.5 7.2 7.5 7.5
VI 6.2 7.5 6.7 6 8 6.8
Average 6.8 7.5 7.2 7.0 7.1
U.S. Utility
VII 6.5 7.8 7.5 6.7 7.0
VIII 5.2 6.7 6.5 5.2 5.9
IX 7.2 7.0 6.5 7.5 7.0
Average 6.2 7.2 6.7 6.5 6.6

 

-43-

TABLE 6

Average Shear Force Pounds of Cuts in Sequence

from the Anterior to the Posterior End
of the Longissimus Dorsi of Beef

 

 

 

ggut
Animal 1 2 5 4 Average
U.S. Good
I 15.4 9.8 15.5 9.9 12.1
II 15.0 15.5 11.0 10.8 12.5
III 17.0 14.9 11.0 11.6 15.6
Average 15.8 12.7 11.8 10.8 12.8
U.S. Commercial
IV 17.0 15.4 14.8 15.2 15.6
V 18.0 15.6 15.8 10.5 14.5
VI 15.5 15.8 17.2 14.2 15.1
Average 16.8 14.9 15.5 15.5 15.1
U.S. Utility
VII 18.2 15.4 15.2 18.0 16.2
VIII 17.6 15.1 17.5 21.2 17.8
IX 16.8 17.0 15.0 17.4 16.5
Average 17.5 15.8 15.2 18.8 16.8

 

-49-

 

 

    
       

  
  

 

 

 

 

 

+ ,Jélv”.
8(- I ‘/\‘m N

g} / ( Good

5 ' \ .fy '

o 7 __ / I -.’\‘ " Nommercbl

m . / .

m / . )x.

g; ' / x1 Utility

2 6+-

c:

“J l-

o

5

F 5[
41° U.S. Good U.S. Commercial U.S. Utility Grade Averages .
O 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1

Cuts I 2 3 4 I 2 3 4 I 2 3 4 I 2 3 4

Figure 5.

Tenderness Scores for Cuts in Sequence from
Anterior to Posterior End of the Longissimus
Dorsi of Beef. Grade Averages Include the
Scores for Cuts from the Three Animals Within
Each Grade. Roman Numerals Indicate Animal
Numbers.

 

20'—

25*“

POUNDS SHEAR FORCE

 

 

”) us. Good
J J

1;} Good
I’m
1"”. ”I " flommerciol
” V'm

Utility

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Commercial

1 1 1 L

netnnny
l

1 1 1 1

Grade Averages

 

Cuts I 2 3
Figure 6.

r

4l234l234l234

Pounds Shear Force for Cuts in Sequence from
Anterior to Posterior End of the Longissimus
Dorsi of Beef. Grade Averages Include the
Readings for Cuts from Three Animals Within
Each Grade. Roman Numerals Indicate Animal
Numbers.

-50-

attributable to cut were significant at the 5 per cent
level of probability. Interaction between grades and
cuts was found to constitute a source of difference
according to the averages of the shear force readings.
The F value for this interaction between grades and cuts
was significant at the 5 per cent level of probability.

The correlation between tenderness scores and shear
force readings was -.65, which was significant at the
l per cent level of probability. From this correlation
it may be assumed that the objective test measured the
same characteristic that the judges scored for tenderness.

Tables 5 and 6 show lower average tenderness scores
for the four cuts and higher average shear force readings
for the four cuts from animal VIII than.for any of the
other animals. The average scores for tenderness of
Commercial and Utility grades are about the same when
animal VIII is removed from the average of the Utility
grade.

The average tenderness scores for grades are 7.7 for
Good, 7.1 for Commercial and 6.6 for Utility. Average
shear force readings for grades are 12.8 for Good, 15.1
for Commercial and 16.8 for Utility.

The tendency for the average scores of the anterior

or Number 1 cut of each grade to be somewhat less tender

-51-

than other cute is apparent in Table 5 and in the grade
averages of Figure 5. Average shear force readings for
relative tenderness of cuts showed the same trend with
the exception of the average of cut Number 4 of Utility
grade, which was somewhat less tender than out Number 1.
According to the average tenderness scores of cuts
for the 5 animals within each grade, cut Number 2 generally
appears to be slightly more tender than the other three
cuts for each grade. Average shear force readings did

not consistently follow the same pattern.

Juiciness and presg fluig

Scores for juiciness and results of press fluid
tests are shown in Tables 7 and 8 and Figures 7 and 8.
Average juiciness scores and average press fluid per-
centages were similar for the three grades. The average
juiciness scores for the three grades were 6.8 for Good,
6.7 for Commercial and 6.4 for Utility. The differences
in juiciness scores and press fluid percentages showed
no consistent pattern among animals or cuts.

Analysis of variance of average juiciness scores
showed non-significant F values for animals, grades and
cuts. According to analysis of variance for press fluid
percentages, variation attributable to cuts was significant

at the 1 per cent level.

-52-

TABLE 7

Average Juiciness Scores of Cuts in Sequence
from the Anterior to the Posterior End
of the Longissimus Dorsi of Beef

 

 

 

 

CAL
Animal l 2 5 4 Average
U.S. Good
I 8.5 6.0 6.5 5.7 6.6
II 7.2 8.0 7.0 6.8 7.2
III 6.2 6.5 7.5 6.5 6.7
Average 7.2 6.8 6.9 6.5 6.8
U.S. Commercial
IV 7.5 5.7 7.5 5.0 6.4
V 8.5 8.2 7.7 6.5 7.6
VI 6.5 7.0 6.8 4.8 6.2
Average 6.5 7.0 7.5 5.4 6.7
U.S. Utility
VII 8.2 4.8 6.7 6.5 6.6
VIII 4.5 4.8 7.5 7.8 6.1
IX 7.5 5.7 6.5 6.0 6.4
Average 6.7 5.1 6.8 6.8 6.4

 

-55-

TABLE 8

Average Percentage Press Fluid of Cuts in Sequence

from the Anterior to the Posterior End
of the Longissimus Dorsi of Beef

 

 

 

911-:
Animal l 2 5 4 Average
U.S. Good
I 56.0 51.6 50.8 26.4 50.0
II 24.0 55.2 25.6 24.8 27.2
111 29.6 55.6 51.2 29.6 51.6
Average 50.0 54.0 29.2 26.8 50.0
U.S. Commercial
IV 26.4 55.6 56.0 24.8 50.4
V 51.2 58.4 50v4 28.8 52.0
VI 25.2 56.0 54.4 28. O 50. 0
Average 26.8 56.0 55.6 27.2 50.8
U.S. Utility
VII 26.0 27.2 52.0 52.8 29.6
VIII 26.0 52.0 40.0 56.8 55.6
IX 29.6 51.6 55.2 50.4 51.6
Average 27.2 50.4 55.6 55.2 50.8

-54-

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0‘)
1.1.]
(I
O
0
(D
U)
(D
11.1
E
9
D
'3
4g . ..
‘1 U.S. Good US. Commercial U.S. ULlulltyl Crodel Averloges 4?
Culsl234l234|234l234
Figure 7. Juiciness Scores for Cuts in Sequence from
Anterior to Posterior End of the Longissimus
Dorsi of Beef. Grade Averages Include the
Scores for Cuts from Three Animals Within
Each Grade. Roman Numerals Indicate Animal
Numbers.
40-
8 36
d
|.-
Z
3 32
1:
in
(L
9 28
D
4.
LL
:3 24
DJ
m b
O-
. I U.S. Good U.S. Commercial U.S. Utility lGrade Averpges r
1 J l 1 1 L 1 n 1 l I
(hngl 2' 3 4 I 2 3 4 I 2 3 44 l 2 :3 4

Figure 8. Press Fluid Percentages for Cuts in Sequence
from Anterior to Posterior End of the
Longissimus Dorsi of Beef. Grade Averages
Include the Scores for Cuts from Three
Animals Within Each Grade. Roman Numerals
.Indicate Animal Numbers.

Positive correlation between Judges' scores and press
fluid percentages was significant at the 5 per cent level
of probability.

Cooking Weight Losses

Total cooking weight losses
The averages of the total cooking weight loss per-

centages of the cuts from the longissimus dorsi were very
similar for the three grades studied. The variation in
total cooking weight losses of the individual cuts for
each animal of the three grades is shown in Table 9 and
Figure 9. There was a tendency for the anterior, or
Number 1 cut, and the posterior, or Number 4 cut. to

have higher cooking weight losses than did the cuts

from the two center positions. In Good and Commercial
grades, the percentage losses were greater for cuts
Number 1 and Number 4 than for cuts Number 2 and Number 3.
However, this pattern of cooking losses was not evident
in cuts from Utility grade animals.

Analysis of variance showed the differences in total
cooking weight loss percentages attributable to cuts to
be significant at the l per cent level of probability.

The lowest average cooking weight loss percentage
was that of animal VIII, which was also noticeably different

from the other animals in most palatability characteristics.

Percentage Total Cooking Weight Losses of Cuts
from the Anterior to the Posterior End
of the Longissimus Dorsi of Beef

-55-

TABLE 9

 

 

 

Qua;
Animal l 2 3 4 Average
U.S. Good
I 36.3 34.6 33.5 40.2' 36.2
II 36.9 32.4 36.6 39.0 36.2
III 40.3 34.4 35.1 39.0 37.2
Average 37.8 33.8 35.1 39.4 36.5
U.S. Commercial
IV 39.7 33.0 30.7 42.7 36.5
V 40.1 30.7 33.8 31.9 34.1
VI 42.0 35.9 33.6 42.3 38.5
Average 40.6 33.2 32.7 39.0 36.4
U.S. Utility
VII 40.1 39.7 38.3 36.7 38.7
VIII 39.7 35.4 26.6 29.7 32.9
IX 36. 38.7 36.8 42.6 38.7
Average 38.8 37.9 33.9 36.3 36.8

 

-57-

 

PERCENTAGE

 

. .‘Vj

 

U.S. Goad

TOTAL ooomrio WEIGHT LOSSES

  

Commercial!
Utility

 

 

 

 

 

U.S. Commercial U.S. Utility Grade Averages j»
1 1 1 1 1 l l i L

 

|234l 234| 234

 

PERCENTAGE

 

VOLAflLE LOSSES

     

 

U.S. Commercial

1 l i

 

 

 

Grade Averages %
1 1 L

U.S. Utility
1 1 l

 

 

T

l234|234l234

 

PERCENTAGE

 

 

DRIPPING LOSSES .
Commercual
m I Good
3 par. . \ U'l'l'y
_ m
URS (Load U'Si Comlmercial UiS' Utility grade Averages

 

 

 

 

 

Cuts l 2 3
Figure 9.

l2 34l 234| 234

Percentages of Cooking Weight Loss for Cuts
in Sequence from Anterior to Posterior End
of the Longissimus Dorsi of Beef. Grade
Averages Include the Percentage Loss for
Cuts from Three Animals Within Each Grade.
Roman Numerals Indicate Animal Numbers.

-58-

Drip 1 se

Dripping losses, as indicated by Table 10 and
Figure 9, did not vary significantly for animals, grades,
cuts or interaction of grades and cuts.

The quantity of drippings was very small from many
of the roasts, and frequently the drippings were dried
on the roasting pans and could not be measured volu-'
metrically. The drippings from the roasts of animal VIII
were golden in color, and had a peculiar, viscous con-
sistency. The odor was fishy and pungent, suggestive

of ammonia and Sulphur.

Volatile losses

The general pattern of volatile loss percentages
was found to be similar to the total cooking weight loss
percentages. Average percentages for volatile losses
were comparable for the three grades studied as shown
by Table 11 and Figure 9. The analysis of variancer
indicated the variation in volatile loss percentages,
attributable to cut, were significant at the l per cent
level of probability.

-59-

TABLE 10

Percentage Dripping Losses of Cuts in Sequence

from the Anterior to the Posterior End
of the Longissimus Dorsi of Beef

 

 

Cut ,_
Animal 1 2 3 4 Average
U.S. Good
I 2.5 1.9 4.3 2.3 2.8
II 1.3 2.2 2.2 2.0 1.9
III 1.4 3.9 2.6 2.5 2.6
Average 1.7 2.7 3.0 2.3 2.4
U.S. Commercial
IV 1.6 1.9 2.3 2.5 2.1
V 1.5 2.9 2.6 1.9 2.2
VI 1.3 5.0 2.4 2.9 2.9
Average 1.5 3.3 2.4 2.4 2.4
U.S. Utility
VII 2.3 1.6 1.3 2.3 1.9
VIII 1.5 1.3 3.1 1.3 1.8
IX 1.4 ‘ 1.8 2.5 2.4 2.0
Average 1.7 1.6 2.3 2.0 1.9

 

-50-

TABLE 11

Percentage Volatile Losses of Cuts in Sequence
from the Anterior to the Posterior End
of the Longissimus Dorsi of Beef

 

 

 

Cut
Animal 1 2 3 4 Average
U. S o 600d
I 33.9 32.7 29.2 37.9 33.4
II 35.5 30.2 34.4 36.9 34.3
III 38.9 30.6 32.6 36.5 34.7
Average 31.6 31.2 32.1 37.1 34.1
U.S. Commercial
IV 38.1 31.1 28.4 40.2 34.5
V 38.6 27.8 31.2 30.1 31.9
VI 40.8 30.8 31.4 39.3 35.6
Average 39.2 29.9 30.3 36.5 34.0
U.S. Utility
VII 37.8 38.1 36.9 34.5 36.8
VIII 38.2 34.1 23.5 28.4 31.1
IX 35.1 36.9 34.3 40.2 36.6
Average 37.0 ‘ 36.4 31.6 34.4 34.8

-61-

Edible Portion Cost

The edible portion cost of cooked meat is of great
importance to the institution food service Operator. In
this study the factors which were considered in calculating
the cost of cooked meat included trim and cooking losses.
The labor and fuel used in the preparation of the meat were
not included as part of the edible portion cost.

In determining the cost per pound of the uncooked
muscles for each grade, the averages of the price quo-
tations for stripped loin and the percentage of the
stripped loin represented by the longissimus dorsi muscle
were used as a basis. The cost per pound of the uncooked
muscle was found to be 32.3028 for Good, 31.8046 for
Commercial and 31.3071 for Utility. The total cost of
the uncooked muscles for each grade was divided by the
total cooked weight of the roasts in each grade to
determine the cost per pound of the cooked meat. The
cost per pound of cooked meat, calculated by this method,
was 33.6118 for Good, 32.8640 for Commercial and $2.0655
for Utility. The comparative costs of the raw and cooked

meat are shown in Table 12.

-52-

TABLE 12

Cost of Wholesale Cuts and Longissimus Dorsi
(per pound)

 

Stripped loin, Longissimus Dorsi Edible Portion,

 

 

Grade Untrimmed Uncooked Cooked 2.5 ounces
Good $1.3817 $2.3028 $3.6118 $.5644
Commercial l1.173o .1.8046 2.8640 .4475
Utility .9150 1.3071 2.0655 .3228

 

The cost for a 2.5 ounce cooked portion, based on the
calculations shown in Table 12, was 3.5644 for Good,
3.4475 for Commercial and 3.3226 for Utility. The cost
per pound of meat for this study, appears to be higher
than that reported by other workers. In determining the
cost per pound for both raw and cooked meat in this study,
no value was assigned to the edible trim which remained
after the removal of the longissimus dorsi from the
wholesale cut. For practical use it is likely that the
strip loin would be roasted in its entirety. Therefore,
the cost per pound under these conditions would be some-
what less than that reported here.

After edible portion cost is considered, it is

doubtful that the variations in palatability attributable

-53-

to grade would Justify the use of the longissimus dorsi
muscle of a grade higher than Utility in commercial food
establishments. However, the extremely erratic results
from animal VIII of Utility grade would seem to indicate
the need for further study of the palatability factors of
samples from this grade. When data from animal VIII were
omitted from the palatability evaluations, there appeared
to be only very small differences in acceptability between
Commercial and Utility grades. These differences in palat-
ability were not great enough to Justify the additional
eXpenditure represented by the difference in edible portion
cost between the two grades. Results of this study indicate
the desirability of further investigation of the palata-
bility characteristics of cuts from Utility grade. Data
from this study do not give a sufficient basis for
recommending the purchase of Utility grade strip loins

for use in large quantity food service.

-64-

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The objective of this study was to compare palata-
bility, cooking weight losses and edible portion cost of
cuts from the longissimus dorsi of U.S. Good, Commercial
and Utility grades of beef.

The cuts from this muscle were roasted by constant
oven temperature at 1490 C (3000 F) to an internal
temperature of 800 C (1760 F). Samples of the roasted
meat were scored by six Judges for aroma, appearance,
flavor, texture, tenderness and Juiciness. The score
card scale was 0 to 10, with 10 high. Objective tests
were also used for determining tenderness and Juiciness.

The summary of results of the comparison of the
three grades follows:

1. According to the averages of the Judges‘ scores
variations in aroma, flavor and tenderness appeared to
be attributable to grade. Analysis of variance based on
the averages of the shear force readings for tenderness
indicated that differences in tenderness, attributable
to grade, were significant at the 1 per cent probability

level.

-55-

2. From the analysis of Judges' scores, it appeared
that there was little difference between grades in ap-
pearance, texture and Juiciness. Results of press fluid
tests did not show a significant difference in Juiciness
attributable to grade.

3. A highly significant negative correlation was
found between shear force tests and tenderness scores.

4. A positive correlation, significant at the 5 per
cent probability level, was found between press fluid
tests and juiciness scores.

5. There was no significant difference attributable
to grade in the average total cooking weight losses,
volatile losses or drip losses.

6. The cost of a 2.5 ounce cooked portion of the
longissimus dorsi muscle was 30.5644 for Good, 30.4475
for Commercial and 50.3228 for Utility grade.

7. From the results of this study it was apparent
that the edible portion cost of roasted strip loin from
U.S. Good beef carcass would be too expensive for use in
most commercial food establishments.

8. When the data from animal VIII of Utility grade
were omitted from palatability evaluations, Commercial

and Utility grade samples were found to be quite similar.

-66..

The difference in edible portion cost of these two grades
is great enough to warrant careful consideration. However,
further studies of the acceptability of roasts from animals
of the Utility grade would need to be made before sound
recommendations would be feasible concerning the purchase

of cuts from this grade for roasting.

l.

2.

3.

4.

5.

7.

8.

9.

-57-

LITERATURE C ITED

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. Shrinkage of roast beef in relation
to fat content and cooking temperature. J. Home

Alexander, L. M. and Clark, N. G. Shrinkage and heat
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.

Alexander, L. M. and Clark, N. G. Shrinkage and cooking
time of rib roasts of beef of different grades as
influenced by style of cutting and method of
roasting. U.S. Dept. Agr. Tech. Bul. 676. 1939.

Barbells, N. G., Hankins, 0. 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.

Barbella, N. G., Tanner, B. and Johnson, T. G.
Relationships of flavor and Juiciness of beef to
fatness and other factors. Proc. Am. Soc. Animal
Prod. 29: 289-294. 1936.

Black, W. H., Warner, K. F. and Wilson, 0. V.
Beef production and quality as affected by grade
and steer feeding grain supplement. U.S. Dept.
Agr. Tech. B111. 217. 19310

Bogga, M. M. and Hanson, H. L. Analysis of food by

sensory differences tests. Advances in Food
Research. 2:219-258. 1949.

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

10.

11.

12.

13.
14.

15.

16.
17.
18.

19.

20.

-68...

Brannaman, G. A., Hankins, 0. 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. S. Measuring the tenderness of meet 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, S. Meat for the table. lst ed. New York.
McGraw Hill Book Co., Inc. 1951.

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

Child, A. M. and Esteros, F. 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
temperatures 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 losses of roasted beef and pork muscles.
J. Agr. Res. 57: 865-871. 1938.

Clark, N. G. Pork loins when seared shrink more in
weight though cooking faster. Yearbook of Agr.
1932.

Clark, R. K. and Van Duyne, F. 0. Cooking losses,
tenderness, palatability, and thiamine and ribo-
flavin content of beef as affected by roasting,
pressure and saucepan cooking, and broiling.
Food Res. 14: 221-230. 1949.

Cline, J. A. and Foster, R. The effect of oven
temperature on beef roasts. Mo. Agr. Expt. Sta.
Bul. 328. 1933.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

.-69-

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

Cline, J. A., Loughead, M. E. and Schwartz, B. E.
The effect of two roasting temperatures on
palatability and cooking losses of roasts.

Mo. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 310. 1932.

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

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

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

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: 273-286. 1937.

Dawson, E. H. and Harris, B. L. Sensory methods for
measuring differences in food quality. Agr.
Information Bul. No. 34. 1951.‘

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. Food acceptability: its determination
and evaluation. Food Tech. 1: 39-50. 1947.

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.

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

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

39.

40.

41.

42.

-70-

Grindley, H. S., and Sprague, E. C. A precise
method of roasting beef, U. of 111., Univ.
Studies, Vol. 2, No. 4. 1907.

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 foods.
Food Res. 2: 287-288. 1937.

Hankins, O. G. Quality in meat and meat products.
Ind. Eng. Chem. 3: 220-223. 1945.

Hankins, 0. G. and Ellis, N. R. Fat in relation to
quantity and quality factors of meat animal
carcasses. Proc. Am. Soc. Animal Prod. 32:
315-319. 1939.

Hankins, 0. G. and Hiner, R. L. Freezing makes
beef tenderer. Food Ind. 1: 49-51. 1940.

Hanson, H. L., Stewart, G. F. and Lowe, B.
Palatability and histological changes occurring
in New York dressed broilers held at 1.70 C
(35° F). Food Res. 7: 148-160. 1942.

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.

Harrison, D. L. Histological, physical, and organoleptic
changes in three grades of beef during aging.
Unpublished Ph. D. Thesis. Ames, Iowa, Iowa State
College Library. 1943.

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

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

44.

45.

46.

47.

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

54.

-71-

Latzke, E. Standardizing methods of roasting beef
in experimental cookery. N. Dak. Agr. Expt. Sta.
Bul. 242. 1930.

Lowe, B. EXperimental cookery. 3rd ed. New York,
John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1944.

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.

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

National Cooperative Meat Investigations, Committee
on Preparation Factors. Meat and meat cookery.
Chicago, National Live Stock and Meat Board. 1942.

Noble, I. T., Halliday, E. G. and Klass, H. K.
Studies on tenderness and Juiciness of cooked
meat. J. Home Econ. 26: 238-242. 1934.

Orr, K. J. Effect of cold storage and frozen storage
on the palatability and histological appearance
of the longissimus dorsi muscle of beef.
Unpublished M. S. Thesis. East Lansing, Muchigan,
Michigan State College Library. 1949.

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.

Paul, P. C., Lowe, B. and McClurg, B. R. Changes
in histological structure and palatability of
beef during storage. Food Res. 9: 221-223. 1944.

Paul, P. C. and MbLean, B. B. Effect of different
internal temperatures on veal roasts from calves
of three different weights. Food Res. 11: 107-110.
1946.

Ramsbottom, J. M., Strandine, E. J. and Koonz, C. H.
Comparative tenderness of representative beef
muscles. Food Res. 10: 497-509. 1945.

55.

56.

57.

58.

59.

60.

61.

-72-

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

Snedecor, G. W. Statistical methods. 'Rev. ed.
Ames, Iowa, Collegiate Press, Inc. 1938.

Steiner, G. Post-mortem changes in beef muscle at
different temperatures as measured by its
mechanical behavior. (Abstract) Chem. Abstract
33: 2965. 1939. . -

Tanner, B., Clark, N. G. and Hankins, O. G. Mechanical
determination of Juiciness of meat. J. Agr. Res.
66: 403-4120 19430

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

United States Department of Agriculture. U. S. grades
for beef. .Production and Marketing Administration,
Livestock Branch. Leaflet No. 310. 1951.

'Wood, C. D. Meats: composition and cooking. U. S.
Dept. Agr. Expt. Sta. Farmers Bul. 34. 1896.

_ . _ ' I h. '4 - .
.
..' . U -.
O - .

’
O
.a
n
t ' .4-

APPENDICES

-74-

APPENDIX A. STATISTICAL ANALYSES

1. Analysis of Variance Based on Aroma Scores.

Variance Degrees of freedom Mean squares
Total ., 35

Animals 6 .59
Grade 2 3.86**
Cuts 3 .07
Grades and Cuts 6 .06
Error 18 .33

2. Analysis of Variance Based on Flavor Scores.

Variance Degrees of freedom Mean squares
Total 35

Animals 6 2.02**
Grades 2 6.47**
Cuts 3 .04
Grades and Cuts 6 .22
Error ‘ 18 .43

**Significance exceeds the 1 per cent probability level.

-75-

3. Analysis of Variance Based on Appearance Scores.

Variance Degrees of freedom Mean squares
Total 35

Animals 6 .51
Grades 2 .00
Cuts 3 .35
Grades and Cuts 6 .20
Error 18 .46

4. Analysis of Variance Based on Texture Scores.

Variance Degrees of freedom Mean squares
Total 35

Animals 6 .12
Grades 2 .25
Cuts 3 .75
Grades and Cuts 6 .10.

Error 18 .28

-76..

5. Analysis of Variance Based on Tenderness Scores.

Variance Degrees of freedom Mean squares
Total 35

Animals 6 .69
Grades 2 3.65**
Cuts 3 .96*
Grades and Cuts 6 .05
Error 18 .30

6. Analysis of Variance Based on Pounds Shear Force.

Variance Degrees of freedom Mean squares
Total 35

Animals 6 2.20
Grades 2 50.72**
Cuts 3 13.38%
Grades and Cuts 6 7.65*
Error 18 2.86

**Significance exceeds the 1 per cent probability level.
*Significance exceeds the 5 per cent probability level.

-77-

7. Analysis of Variance Based on Juiciness Scores.

Variance Degrees of freedom Mean squares
Total 35

Animals 6 1.04
Grades 2 .82

Cuts 3 2.06
Grades and Cuts 6 1.52
Error 18 1.01

8. Analysis of Variance Based on Percentage Press Fluid.

Variance Degrees of freedom Mean Squares
Total 35

Animals 6 .90
Grades 2 .43

Cuts 3 4.05**
Grades and Cuts 6 2.07*
Error 18 .60

#SSignificance exceeds the 1 per cent probability level.

*Significance exceeds the 5 per cent probability level.

-78-

9. Analysis of Variance Based on Percentage Total Cooking

Losses.

Variance Degrees of freedom Mean squares
Total 35

Animals 6 22.33
Grades 2 3.35

Cuts 3 _. 69.36“
Grades and Cuts 6 19.29
Error 18 12.15

10. Analysis of Variance Based on Percentage Volatile

Losses.

Variance Degrees of freedom Mean Squares
Total 35

Animals 6 19.51
Grades 2 2.53
Cuts 3 74.69**
Grades and Cuts 6 16.25
Error 18 9.90

**Significance exceeds the 1 per cent probability level.

11.

-79-

Analysis of Variance Based on Percentage Drip Losses.

Variance

Total

Animals

Grades

Cuts

Grades and Outs

Error

Degrees of freedom
35
6
2
3
6
18

Mean squares

.53
1.06
1.63

.62

.63

 

 

’

 

hum
hamamnpxm

wee
hump

ham

momma.

time-m

 

name

mmomaoese Somme: momma

mafia“

hho>

howsw
hfloaohpxm

mmonwo

 

msono mo .02.

 

 

 

rmmSop
haeaoapxm

memos
knob

memos

mSCHE

 

«mam

 

 

mem

m mmflhmvdfi 0H- gfidg .HGGHHOP

moemoe

haeb

Macao»
hfloaonpkm

mmoqhod

 

nepwm mo
nowpmamdom

muoqapmHOMWIlll.

knowSOQ

~

 

 

hmcfinpm
omamoo
haeSmaaam

findwnpm
amnmoo

hnm>

hmnwup

a
enamoo

mamas

msHm

 

 

Mama

mnemonfim suave:

onw

oqwh
knob

awe:
thwcwhpm
on .onwm
kaoaoapxm

endp-

 

-30-

 

woman

hpamm

emoo

heaven

6H0

Mdoapm
noun

dezoaaoa

vHHE

.H Ob-

 

 

APéENDIX B. SCORE SHEET

 

anaomocfinhw

honmixnmd
hmnw pswfla

nsonp hoam. ;
nsonp Mama. 11.
nsonp.wmeH t.

awaonom
pqwmm

 

muchpfillll!
madam
cHfia
Emma
mfiHemHmome
amo: Mommo

 

 

 

0 Ughfim-

 

1
_
_

QE-

 

OHQMBQQoOSMD

noom
hHmaoanH

hoom
hhe>

noom

Harm.

 

mdnflfi

Lem

 

lllmmmmm

amaeoe eooe

doom
haeaonpxm

 

 

o

 

H

 

N

 

:

 

 

w1611m a

 

 

h

 

 

 

iii-Iv“. it. ‘II 'I’

 

B¢Mfi Mofi mm4o meom

moeoawi

 

 

5".-.“

 

.oz Hmawa
.oz oamam

-81-

APPENDIX C. COST DATA

Price Quotations of Three Grades of Stripped Loin

June 1, 1952

 

Cost Per Pound

 

 

 

 

 

 

Packing Company U.S. Good U.S. Commercial Utility
Swift $1.370 $1.160 .930
Armour 1.369 1.154 .904
Phaelzer Bros. 1.406 1.205 .911
Average 1.382 1.173 .915
Costs of Cooked Portions
Cost of Cooked Portions

U.S. Grades 2 ounce 2.5 ounce 3 ounce
Good 5.4515 3 .5644 5 .6771
Commercial .3580 .4475 .5370
Utility .2582 .3228 .3873

 

-82..

APPENDIX D. STORAGE DATA

Storage Data for Sides of Steer Beef
From Which Longissimus Dorsi Muscles
were Dissected for this Study

 

 

Packing Purchase
Animal Company Date Weight 1
,Number Grade Side Source Killed of Side Shrink.
I Good Right Plankinton; 5-21-52 332# 7#
II Good Right Armour 5-21-52 298% 5#
III Good Left Armour 5-21-52 313% 5%#
IV Commercial Left Armour 6-11-52 306# 9#'
v Commercial Left Armour 6-11-52 298# 743/4#
VI Commercial Left Armour 6-11-52 soo# 9#
VII Utility ' Right Armour 6- 4-52 ' 260% 7#
vIII Utility Left Armour 7- 2-52 , 230# 11#
IX Utility Right Armour 6- 4-52 271# 7#

 

lShrinkage includes evaporation and dripping losses from sides
of beef ripened 13 days at approximately 2 C (35° F).

 

 

\iL’Afis. A...

HICHIGQN STRTE UNIV. LIBRQRIES

IIIIWI lll llllllllll ll |||||||||4||H||||
31 1

2931057066 2