" '- I ' —--- .-...-M-.-. ! _ LIBRARY ii Michigan State f ‘x I UMVCI'SICY {a ‘ '| ‘ '-~w'a.wu’ 3} (mg—,5. This is to certify that the thesis entitled THE APPLICATION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE PRINCIPLES TO A COMMISSARY FOODSERVICE SYSTEM presented by RONALD FRANCIS CICHY has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for Ph.D. Food Science 8 Human Jegree in Nutrition /@ £7 2M JMajor pfjfessor 0-7 639 OVERoug FINES: 25¢ per day per item RETURNING LIBRARY MATERIALS: Place in book return to remove 5 charge from circulation records THE APPLICATION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE PRINCIPLES TO A COMMISSARY FOODSERVICE SYSTEM BY Ronald Francis Cichy A DISSERTATION Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition 1981 Copyright by RONALD F. CICHY 1981 ABSTRACT THE APPLICATION OF QUALITY ASSURANCE PRINCIPLES TO A COMMISSARY FOODSERVICE SYSTEM BY Ronald Francis Cichy The thrust of this research was an analytical and comprehensive investigation of ground beef patty produc- tion in a commissary foodservice system. Several quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) tools were used to eval- uate the effectiveness of this firm's total quality system. The Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) proce- dure revealed deficiencies in the system and pointed the way toward corrective action. The costs of quality and the management responsibilities regarding QA/QC were dis- cussed in a general sense. The Pareto analysis focused QA/QC efforts on the "vital few" sensitive locations in the commissary meat production room. The ground beef patty weights were analyzed to deter- mine uniformity. A process capability study and analysis revealed the extent to which the patty weights conform to the corporation's established tolerances. Recommendations were developed based on the information resulting from the Ronald Francis Cichy ground beef patty weight investigations. ' Microbiological analyses of both incoming beef and finished ground beef patties determined the extent of product contamination. Recommendations to reduce the con- tamination and monitor the product's bacterial load were presented. The ground beef patty nutrient profile was studied to ascertain its contribution to daily nutritional needs. Commissary sensory evaluations were evaluated and recommendations were made regarding the use of sensory taste panels and sensory analysis in both the commissary and restaurants. Suggestions were developed in regard to product re- call procedures. Guidelines for initiating a system for product traceability in both the commissary and restaurants were discussed. The topic of quality audits was covered in relation to comprehensive and special quality surveys. A system for classifying and handling customer complaints was developed. The objective of this research was to provide the management of this commissary foodservice system with an independent study of their quality program. Several of these recommendations can be adapted to any foodservice system, regardless of size. The recommendations presented allow the management group to be proactive rather than reactive. Ronald Francis Cichy The study illustrated that the QA/QC system must have the support of management, if it is to be effective. QA/QC in a foodservice firm should result in the satisfaction of the target market's needs coupled with a profitable bottom 1 ine o' To my wife, Susan E. Moeller ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This dissertation and my doctoral studies could not have been completed without the assistance and encourage- ment received from several people on my team. My sincere appreciation is expressed to the members of my Ph.D. Guidance Committee. Professor Lewis J. Minor provided unmatched encouragement, support, counsel, and assistance throughout my studies. Professor Richard C. Nicholas painstakingly spent long hours as my dissertation director. Professor Mary E. Zabik provided superior guid- ance and financial support. Professor Robert L. Blomstrom made many helpful suggestions and editorial comments. Professor Charles M. Stine was helpful with his editorial comments. The much needed financial support from the L. J. Minor Corporation of Cleveland, OH was greatly appreciated. Professors Donald I. Smith and Robert L. Blomstrom, Direc- tors of the School of Hotel, Restaurant and Institutional Management at Michigan State University during my doctoral studies, were generous with the financial resources under their control. The management and staff of the commissary foodser- vice under study were very willing to provide the necessary information. Several others who deserve a special thank ii you are Susan E. Moeller, for assistance with the computer regression analysis, Professor Clyde Anderson, for assis- tance with experimental design and statistical analyses, and Karen Grannemann, for editoral assistance. Special appreciation is extended to my wife, Susan, for the mental, physical, and financial assistance that she provided. Susan furnished needed encouragement throughout my doctoral studies and this expression of appreciation is merely a token of my gratitude. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS. LIST OF TABLES . LIST OF FIGURES. TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter 1 INTRODUCTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1 Objective. . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2 Quality Assurance Tools Used . . . 1.3 Quality Assurance Tools Not Used. . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE. . . . . . . . . . . 2.1 Foodservice Industry Statistics. . 2.2 Definitions of Quality . . . . . . 2.3 Commissary Foodservice Systems . . 2.4 Ground Beef Consumption in the United States . . . . . . . . 2.5 Hazard Analysis Critical Con- trol Point Concept. . . . . . . . 2.6 Microbiological Aspects of Ground Beef . . . . . . . . . . . 2.7 Nutritional Aspects of Ground Beef 2.8 Sensory Aspects of Ground Beef . . 3 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL ANALYSES . C O C C O C O O O O O O C O 3.1 Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Concept . . . . . . . . . iv vii ll 14 15 21 28 33 36 36 Chapter 4 5 RESULTS 4.1 4.2 4.9 DISCUSS 5.1 5.2 5.3 The Pareto Principle and Analysis. . . . . . . . . . . . Production of Ground Beef Patties O O O I O O O O O O O 0 Analysis of Patty Weights. . . . Process Capability Analysis of Patty Weights. . . . . . . iMicrobiological Analyses . . . . Nutritional Analysis of Ground Beef Patties . . . . . . Sensory Analysis of Ground Beef Patties. . . . . . . . . . Process Flow Diagram . . . . . . Commissary Process Flow Operations. . . . . . . . . . . Restaurant Process Flow Operations 0 O O O O O O O O O O The Pareto Analysis and Results. Analysis of Patty Weights. . . . Process Capability Analysis. . . Analysis of Patty Fat Content. . Analysis of Microbiological Results . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Nutrition Results. . ION AND RECOMMENDATIONS. . . . . Quality Control/Quality Assurance . . . . . . . . . . Hazard Analysis Critical Con- trol Point Concept. . . . . . . Ground Beef Patty Weights. . . . V 50 52 58 61 67 73 78 78 82 88 91 94 104 107 114 129 135 136 144 157 Chapter 5.4 Microbiological Analysis . . . . 5.5 Nutrition Considerations . . . . 5.6 Sensory Evaluations. . . . . . . 5.7 Product Recall Procedures. . . . 5.8 Quality Audits . . . . . . . . . 5.9 Conclusions and Recommendations for Additional Research . . . . REFERENCES 0 I O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O APPENDICES O O C O O O O O O I O O O O O O O O O A. B. Commissary Product Evaluation Forms . . Descriptions of the Meat Room Equip- ment Sensitive Locations Monitored During the Pre-operation Inspection. . Percent Fat in the Pretest vs. Percent Fat in the Finished Patty. . . . . . . Percent Fat in the Pretest vs. Patty weight 0 O O O O I O O O O O O O O O 0 Detection and Identification of Salmonella . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Process Capability Analysis and Analysis of Covariance Data. . . . . . vi 194 199 210 210 216 218 220 224 232 Table 3.130 3.230 3.240 3.410 3.710 3.720 3.730 4.230 4.410 4.411 LIST OF TABLES Critical Control Points in the Produc- tion of a Ground Beef Patty Sandwich in a Commissary Foodservice System. . . Total Plate Counts (TPCs) From Swab Tests on Selected Equipment Locations in the Commissary Meat Room . . . . . . TPCs and Meat Contact Scores and Priority Rankings of Selected Equipment Locations in the Com- missary Meat Room . . . . . . . . . . . Sampling Schedule for the Process Capability Study and the Analysis of Covariance of Net Patty Weights. . . Recommended Daily Dietary Allowances for Selected Nutrients for Males and Females in the 23 to 50 Age Group . . . Composition of Raw and Cooked Ground Beef Patties with 21 Percent Fat Based on Values in USDA Handbook No. 456. . . The Percent RDA and the Index of Nutri- tional Quality for Eight Selected Nutrients in Ground Beef Patties. . . . Ambient Temperatures of Raw Beef and Ground Beef Storage Areas in the Commissary and Restaurant . . . . . . . Priority Record for Monitoring the Sanitation Efforts in the Com- missary Meat Room . . . . . . . . . . . Alert Sheet for TPC Scores Used to Inform the Commissary Sanitation Crew. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii 43 47 49 54 69 71 74 84 93 95 Table 4.412 4.413 4.510 4.520 4.610 4.620 4.810 4.811 4.812 4.820 4.840 4.841 Completed Priority Record for Monitoring the Sanitation Efforts in the Commissary Meat Room for a Six Week Period . . . . . . . . . . . . Completed Alert Sheet for TPC Scores Used to Inform the Commissary San- itation Crew. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Analysis of Variance of Patty Weights Produced in a Commissary Foodservice System (n=760). . . . . . . . . . . . . Average Weights (in grams) of Ground Beef Patties Produced in a Commissary Foodservice System (n=760). . . . . . . Factors for Checking_for the Presence of Control, Given R (3-Sigma Limits). . Number, Percentage, and Cumulative Per- centage of x-‘s in Each Interval for the Process Capability Study of Ground Beef Patty Weights (n=760) . . . Total Plate Counts (TPCs) of Fresh and Frozen Boneless Beef Received at the Commissary. . . . . . . . . . . . . Average Total Plate Counts (TPCs) of Ground Beef Patties Produced in the Commissary. . . . . . . . . . . . . Averages and Standard Deviations of Total Plate Counts (TPCs) of Fresh and Frozen Boneless Beef and Finished Ground Beef Patties. . . . . . Sampling Plans and Recommended Micro- biological Limits for Chilled and Frozen Raw Beef and Ground Beef Patties. . . . . . . . . . . . . . Time-Temperature History of Frozen and Fresh Beef and Ground Beef Patties in the Commissary . . . . . . . . . . . Time-Temperature Environmental History of Ground Beef Patties During Transpor- Itation from the Commissary to the Restaurant. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii 96 98 100 102 105 108 116 118 120 122 125 127, Table 4.842 4.900 5.340 5.341 Time-Temperature History of Ground Beef Patties in the Restaurant. . A Classification of the Nutrient Content of Ground Beef Patties Based on the Index of Nutritional Quality and the Recommended Daily Dietary Allowances for the 23 to 50 Age Group. . . . . . . . . . . Recipes for Various Standard Fat Fractions in a 480-pound Batch of Ground Beef Patties. . . . . . Percent Error in the Fat Fraction of the Ground Beef Patties Due to a One Percent Variance or Error in the Individual Variable ix 134 164 167 Figure 3.120 4.100 4.240 4.620 4.621 4.622 4.840 4.841 4.842 4.843 LIST OF FIGURES Generalized Process Flow Diagram for Ground Beef Patty Sandwich Produc- tion in a Commissary Foodservice System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Complete Process Flow Diagram for Ground Beef Patty Sandwich Produc- tion in a Commissary Foodservice System. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Plan View of Commissary Meat Room Illustrating Raw Product and Ground Beef Patty Flow. . . . . . . . Frequency Histogram of Ground Beef Patty Weights (n=760) . . . . . . . . Cumulative Frequency Plot of Ground Beef Net Patty Weights (n=760). . . . R Chart of Ground Beef Net Patty Weights . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Time-Temperature History of Frozen and Fresh Beef and Ground Beef in the Commissary . . . . . . . . . . Time-Temperature Environmental History of Ground Beef Patties During Trans- port and Store Walk-in. . . . . . . . Time-Temperature History of Ground Beef Patties in the Restaurant . . . . . . Average Temperature History of Beef and Ground Beef Patties in a Commissary Foodservice System. . . . . . . . . . 38 80 86 109 110 111 126 128 131 132 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Any foodservice operation can be regarded as a system of interrelated activities designed to deliver a series of products to the point at which they are available for con- sumption by the target market. The target market has defin- able needs that must be satisfied by the foodservice opera- tion if the organization is to remain viable and realize a profit. The objective of any foodservice management group is to define these needs and meet or exceed the clientele's expectations. 1.1 Objective The objective of this research was to apply quality assurance and quality control principles, especially the Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) concept, to a commissary foodservice system and to discover whether the quality assurance/quality control principles will enable management to define and meet their target market's expecta- tions. The focus of this research is limited to a com- prehensive treatment of one product produced in this com- missary foodservice system. The product chosen wasaidouble- deck hamburger sandwich. This product is the highest volume ground beef menu item produced by the commissary foodservice system and is subject to all the possible abuses of any 1 2 foodservice system. The commissary's annual production of this product is in excess of 800 tons. 1.2 Quality Assurance Tools Used The focus of this research was centered on a critical analysis of the commissary foodservice system as it pres- ently exists; The HACCP concept was used as a template to reveal existing and potential problems in this system. HACCP principles were tested in the system to determine if this concept could be used as a preventive management tool in the quality assurance program for this operation. Should the application prove useful for ground beef, application to other items will naturally suggest itself. Several other quality assurance tools were also ap- plied to the commissary foodservice system. These tools permit the quality assurance practitioner to make decisions on whether or not the product complies with the Operation's quality standards. In addition to the HACCP investigation, a process capability study of individual patty weights was performed to determine the degree of variability of these weights. A Pareto analysis revealed which critical loca- tions to monitor in relation to swab tests used to deter- mine total plate counts during the pre—operation inspection of the commissary. Specified sampling acceptance procedures were developed to maintain acceptable quality protection based on both organizational and governmental standards. The topic of quality audits was investigated as a tool to aid management in the periodic evaluation of the system. 3 The concept of product traceability was the underlying common thread that permeated all aspects of the system anal- ysis. Where appropriate, recommendations were developed as a result of the research to aid the management and staff of the commissary foodservice system in their task of monitor- ing the quality of the product. Several of these recom- mendations can be adapted to any type of foodservice opera- tion, regardless of size. The emphasis placed on each of these recommendations will vary, based on management evalua- tion of the specific needs of its target market. 1.3 Quality Assurance Tools Not Used Several other quality assurance tools were not used to analyze the commissary foodservice system because they are beyond the scope of this study. However, these quality assurance tools are addressed in Chapter 5, Discussion and Recommendations. These quality assurance tools include the costs of quality, product recall procedures, special quality surveys and comprehensive quality audits. CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE The foodservice industry in the United States is char- acterized by its rapidly changing and dynamic nature. The emergence of a customer-dominated economy is one manifesta— tion of the shift from an industrial society to one based on service. No industry has more to gain from fulfilling the wants and needs of the customer than does the food- service industry. 2.1 Foodservice Industry Statistics The National Restaurant Association (NRA) is project- ing a moderate recovery in 1981 from the slump that has affected the foodservice industry for the last two years. The NRA, in its annual Foodservice Industry Forecast, pre- dicts that total industry sales in 1981 will reach $122.7 billion, a gain of 10.2 percent (Anonymous, 1981). Factor- ing out menu price increases, the NRA forecasts the first industry real growth rate in two years, up 0.3 percent. NRA arrives at this real growth rate on the assumption that menu prices will rise approximately 10 percent in 1981. The NRA's 1980-1981 president, William Regas, com- mented that 40 percent of all money spent on food is spent in foodservice facilities. Within ten years, that figure is 4 5 projected to rise to 50 percent of each food dollar (Anony- mout, 1980b). ,Of the 43 billion meals eaten outside the home annually, 24 billion are served in restaurants and other commercial operations, while 19 billion are eaten in schools, colleges, employee dining rooms, hOSpitalS, and other institutions. Walter Conti, NRA's vice-president, points out that today's consumers are more demanding--they want quality food at reasonable prices, good service in clean surroundings, and variety in a pleasing atmosphere (Anonymous, 1980b). According to the National Restaurant Association's 1977 consumer attitude survey entitled "Consumer Reactions toward Restaurant Practices/Responsibilities," food quality/ preparation was ranked the number one factor influencing the customer's choice of full-service restaurants (Anonymous, 1979b). In the same survey, customers of both quick- and moderate-service operations ranked food quality/preparation as the second most important characteristic in choosing a restaurant operation. The top-ranking characteristic in both quick- and moderate-service foodservice facilities was restaurant cleanliness. 2.2 Definitions of Quality What constitutes quality in foodservice operations? Although varying with the nature of the operation, almost every component of the dining-out experience, including menu variety, prompt service, food preparation techniques, andamm- bience is an indicator of quality. To provide quality, the 6 restaurateur must establish standards for personnel, equip- ment, sanitation, raw materials, food preparation, presenta- tion, and service (Minor, 1977). The customer's perceived value is based on quality and price and is also affected by other factors (Kotschevar, 1975). Gould (1977) stated that quality makes a product what it is. The term "quality," without being carefully defined in relation to some standard, means either very little or too much. The average consumer associates quality with subjec- tive personal preferences, as something that is liked or dis- liked, excellent, superior, great, or good (Thorner and Manning, 1976). Quality, from a technical or scientific viewpoint, can be defined as an orderly classification of the chemical and physical characteristics of a product. Flavor, texture, appearance, consistency, palatability, nutritional values, safety, ease of handling, convenience, storage stability, and packaging are the essential elements that must be evaluated in establishing product quality. Management equates quality with certain economic factors, such as the cost of the product, profits generated and con- sumer acceptance within the intended selling price range (Thorner and Manning, 1976). Quality of foods may be defined as the composite of the characteristics that differentiate individual units of a product (Kramer and Twigg, 1962). These characteris- tics influence the degree of acceptability of the unit by the buyer. Quality may mean excellence in relation to 7 certain things that a consumer wants in a particular product (Grant and Leavenworth, 1972). Paul and Palmer (1972) ob- served that food quality is evaluated by sensory, chemical, and physical methods. Two dominant factors emerge in the definition and evaluation of quality: the actual physical or chemical measurement of the product, and the acceptance of the product by the consumers based on whether or not it completely satisfies their "wants." The development of a quality product and organizational image, coupled with a con- sistent marketing effort, can enhance a firm's market share (Tiegs, 1980). Quality is never the result of the efforts of the quality control or quality assurance department alone. Rather, quality is the one factor that the entire organiza- tion must address and support. It is a valued organiza- tional goal and outcome. Darrah (1974) stated that it is management's responsibility to establish quality as an at- titude that permeates the entire organization. The develop- ment of quality judgment in employees is highly significant to satisfactory production (Terrell, 1979). Quality in pro- duction refers to the taste, appearance, texture, nutri- tional value, and level of excellence of the food served (Mizer and Porter, 1978). Clear concepts of quality are best developed through firsthand experience (Terrell, 1979). 2.21 Quality_Control Quality control may be defined as the maintenance of quality at levels and tolerances acceptable to the buyer 8 while minimizing costs for the supplier (Kramer and Twigg, 1962). Quality control evaluates and applies desired stan- dards to products; it is concerned primarily with things rather than people (Laughlin, 1961). Quality control has been defined as assuring day-in, day-out consistency of quality in each product offered for service (Mizer and Porter, 1978). The standards of quality in a foodservice operation's production department may be established by management, but the achievement of established standards is largely in the hands of the cook and others. Mizer and Porter (1978) pointed out that the task is complicated by the very nature of quality, since it is difficult to keep personal opinion out of quality judgments. Quality control has been defined as the operational techniques and activities that sustain a quality of product or service that will satisfy given needs; also the use of such techniques and activities (ANSI/ASQC Standard, 1978). Without a quality control program, an organization cannot serve a consistent standard. A good quality standard should cover essential characteristics that indicate quality in a product (Kotschevar, 1966). Reece (1979) observed that the modern-day concept of "total quality control" involves sensory evaluation in all stages of product flow, from inspection of incoming raw materials through surveillance of the finished products. It is now recognized by most companies that quality controls are vital and, in many instances, represent the very life blood necessary to 9 compete successfully in today's competitive and changing markets (Bianco, 1977). On the other hand, some companies still View quality control programs as an expense with no direct profit to the firm (Herrmann and Herrmann, 1978). 2.22 Quality Assurance Quality assurance includes all the planned systematic actions necessary to provide adequate confidence that a product or service will satisfy given needs (ANSI/ASQC Standard, 1978). The primary responsibility for the safety, wholesomeness, and nutritional quality of food rests with the food processor, not the Food and Drug Administration or any other governmental organization. The consumer's best hOpe for safety and quality in food lies in the development and maintenance of adequate quality assurance prOgrams (Angelotti, 1975). Quality assurance systems must be in- stalled in a company's Operation to provide some degree of assurance that the products manufactured and shipped are not adulterated or misbranded. The quality assurance system must include ingredient inspection and control, manufacturing control, and distribution control (Smith and Smith, 1975). An effective quality assurance program should embrace all available means of testing, and sensory evaluation is one of the most important (Reece, 1979). Lushbough (1978) stated that quality assurance over— sees and evaluates production. There can be no quality assurance program without specific defined procedures and Operational techniques of quality control. Neither quality 10 control nor quality assurance, alone or together, can guar- antee the production of a quality product. Commitment to consumers must involve every individual who works to pro- duce and distribute appetizing and attractive foods. Creation Of an effective quality assurance program is indicative Of a modern food company's commitment to provid- ing consumers with safe, wholesome, and nutritious foods‘of consistent high quality at a reasonable and realistic price (Lushbough, 1978). Quality assurance must be held respon- sible for measuring, auditing, and reporting quality as an -Objective check and balance for management purposes (Briskey, 1978). Quality assurance is a complete system with written specifications and standards, checks of raw materials and other ingredients, inspection Of critical control points in the process, and an audit of the system to monitor the end product (Wodicka, 1977). The establishment Of an effective quality assurance program in any food operation requires, in part, that the program be well defined, adequately communicated, and clearly understood by all participants and put into practice (Bolaffi et a1., 1973). The program must standardize and clearly specify all formulae, manufacturing and storage conditions, product handling, processing, and finished goods inspection. The quality assurance effort must also involve on-going testing and monitoring of physical, chemical, sensory, and microbiological qualities. Assurance Of quality in a foodservice Operation must follow the same basic 11 principles that apply generally to food Operations producing packaged products (Kubu, 1973). Restaurants, unlike com- missary foodservice systems, are unique, however, in that products flow directly into the hands Of the consumer, with minimal Opportunities tO accumulate output, sample, analyze, and withdraw unacceptable products. In contrast, a commis- sary foodservice system may provide increased Opportunities for a dynamic quality assurance program, since food produc- tion and service areas are located in separate facilities. 2.3 Commissary Foodservice Systems The develOpment and proliferation Of commissary food- service systems has been made possible by technological develOpments Of sophisticated foodservice equipment (Unklesbay et a1., 1977). Foodservice organizations that adopt the commissary foodservice system aim to utilize resources more effectively by achieving economies Of scale in food procurement and production. In a commissary food- service system, the fOOd procurement and production functions are centralized. The prepared menu items are then distrib- uted to several remote areas for final preparation and ser- vice (Unklesbay et a1., 1977). Commissary operations usually purchase food products in larger volume with less frequent deliveries; therefore, the raw product cost is frequently less than that in con- ventional foodservice systems. Weisman (1979) Observed that economies of scale in food purchasing provide the com— missary foodservice organization with increased buying clout. 12 This system provides an additional advantage in that there is a corresponding reduction in purchasing time on the part Of the unit or restaurant manager, leaving more time to con- centrate on other management functions. Commissary sys- tems procure food products that have received limited or no processing (Unklesbay et a1., 1977). Expensive multi- function equipment Often is required in the commissary for preparation Of foods from the unprocessed state. Commissaries enable the use of the specialization con- cept regarding employees, equipment, and the physical facil- ity. This approach potentially increases the efficiency Of food production due to the reduced duplication Of produc- tion labor and equipment. An increased investment in both equipment and labor is necessary if production Occurs at each foodservice site. The commissary foodservice system centralizes purchasing and production and, therefore, the overall total investment may be decreased. Due to economies Of scale, more expensive and SOphisticated production equip- ment can be utilized in a commissary foodservice system. Unklesbay et a1. (1977) suggested that space requirements at the service sites are minimized, however, because only limited production equipment is required. Food production in a centralized facility can be more carefully monitored and has the potential for increased quality control, cost control, and less waste. The commissary kitchen helps restaurant groups insure product uniformity and reduced costs. This system also aids restaurant groups in 13 competing more effectively with large franchised operations (Anonymous, 1980a). Since the food production and food service areas are located in separate facilities, the function of food dis- tribution must receive considerable attention for the effec- tive and efficient Operation Of a commissary foodservice system (Unklesbay et a1., 1977). Distribution continues to be a major concern tO the major foodservice chains (Weisman, 1979). There is a need to establish precise standards and a rigid monitoring Of these standards within the Operat- ing system Of each commissary (Cremer and Chipley, 1979). A commissary foodservice system has been referred to as a commissariat, central commissary system, satellite system, and a food factory (Unklesbay et a1., 1977). The term, "commissary," defines the location where food is procured, initially processed, and stored for shipment to the restaurants. Restaurants have also been called com- mercial foodservice operations, stores, retail Outlets, and service sites. A conventional or traditional foodservice system, in contrast, is a single facility in which all of the basic Operating activities from purchasing through service take place. In this thesis, a commissary food- service system designates the commissary and the restaurants, while the term, "restaurant," identifies the location where the food is served to the customers. The data for the study were Obtained from a commissary foodservice system in the midwest, Which reported a l4 foodservice sales volume in excess of $125 million in 1980. The commissary annually ships over two million pounds of fresh beef and more than 1,500 tons of ground beef to well over 100 restaurants, all of which are low- to moderately priced full-menu table-service family restaurants. The ground beef product in this study accounts for over half of the total amount produced. 2.4 Ground Beef Consumption in the United States In recent years, consumption Of ground beef in the United States has increased rapidly. Predictions for 1980 estimate that over 14 billion pounds of ground beef, or over half of the total production Of beef, will be consumed (Cross et a1., 1980). The fresh meat industry is currently undergoing changes in processing, packaging, and distribu- tion Of raw ground beef. These changes are the result Oftflua imposition Of bacterial standards by some governmental agencies and the desire Of meat processors to increase the shelf-life Of raw meat products (Foster et a1., 1977). To accomplish these goals, many retail food chains have cen- tralized processing and distribution Of fresh meat products, which has resulted in little or no meat processing at the retail level. There is much concern by the general public about the microbial quality Of ground meat (Pivnick et a1., 1976). The process Of manufacturing ground beef involves the grind- ing of cellular tissue. This process distributes bacteria normally present on the surface Of the meat throughout the 15 entire product, thereby possibly creating an ideal condition for their multiplication (Duitschaever et a1., 1973). A causal relationship exists between mishandling and the con- tamination of ground meat with microorganisms responsible for fOOd poisoning (Karim, 1977). Ground beef may contain large numbers Of bacteria at the point of sale (Duitschaever, 1977). The bacteriological condition of ground beef is of concern to all segments of the foodservice industry. Re- duced shelf-life, discoloration Of the product, and economic losses as a result Of bacteria are Often encountered (Field et a1., 1977). Fabrication Of ground beef uses a large portion Of the bovine carcass (Emswiler and Kotula, 1979). Frequently, ground beef contains a wide variety of micro- organisms, some Of which might result in food-associated infection or intoxication. However, if properly handled and cooked before consumption, these products should present few public health hazards (Foster et a1., 1978). 2.5 Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Concept Quality of meals is a primary Objective of foodservice systems; therefore, quality control is a major management function (Bobeng and David, 1977). The Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) concept is a preventive ap- proach tO quality control. The principles Of HACCP, as applied to food systems, emphasize microbiological control and identify process stages where loss of control could pre- sent a food safety risk. A careful analysis of ingredients, 16 products, and processes is needed to determine the com- ponents or areas that must be maintained under very strict control to assure that the end product meets the established microbiological specifications (Bauman, 1974). The HACCP concept was developed jointly by the Pills- bury Company, the U.S. Army Natick Laboratories, and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. The Objec- tive Of HACCP was to apply a zero-defects program to the production of food. The Food and Drug Administration's first use of HACCP was in the low-acid canned food indus- try, using the Good Manufacturing Practice (GMP) regula- tions for low-acid canned foods as a guide for the inspec- tors trained in the HACCP technique (Kauffman, 1974). Each food processor's own quality control system was used, when possible. If that was not possible, the FDA inspectors identified the critical points in the processing procedure. Ito (1974) suggested that questions need to be asked in order to identify the critical control points. Hazard analysis is the identification Of sensitive in- gredients, critical process points, and relevant human fac— tors as they affect product safety (Bauman, 1974). Critical control points are those process determiners that, under loss of control, would result in an unacceptable food safety risk (Bauman, 1974). Hazard analysis begins with the devel- opment Of a process flow diagram that includes all relevant processing factors and details and is Specific for the food, process, equipment, and plant involved (Peterson and 17 Gunnerson, 1974). Once each step in the processing, packag- ing, and distribution Ofthe fOOd product has been analyzed, critical control points can be established (Curtis and Huskey, 1974). The type of hazard and its critical control point may differ with each product, ingredient, package, processing procedure, and storage and handling technique. Bauman (1974) stated that hazard analysis must consider the ingredients, the processing steps, and the potential for consumer abuse of the product. The HACCP procedure is a useful tool for preventing hazards by analyzing the hazards of raw materials, the hazards during processing, and the hazards of consumer abuse. Peterson and Gunnerson (1974) identified as the chief value Of HACCP its ability to point out problem areas and problem situations in food processing. The feedback component of HACCP permits management tO use this concept as a preventive approach to quality assurance. The value Of HACCP to management is precisely what manage- ment makes Of it. HACCP models have been applied to both roast beef juice (jus) (Bryan and McKinley, 1980) and roast beef prep- aration (Bryan and McKinley, 1979) in foodservice estab- lishments. Recommendations were developed for hot holding, cooling, storage, and reheating of these food products to minimize microbiological problems. HACCP models have also been adapted to the quality control of entree production in hospital foodservice systems (Bobeng and David, 1977). The entree chosen was the beef loaf, analyzed in three types 18 Of foodservice systems (i.e., conventional, cook/chill, and cook/freeze). Four critical control points were identified for HACCP models for foodservice systems: ingredient con- trol and storage, equipment sanitation, personnel sanitation, and the time-temperature relationship. 2.51 Ingredient Control and Storage Ingredient control and storage includes the develop- ment of ingredient specifications that aid in providing sensory, quantitative, and microbiological control. Com- mercial foodservice Operations term these guidelines stand- ard purchase specifications. Standard purchase specifica- tions are precise statements Of qualities and other desired factors in merchandise (Kotschevar, 1975). They specify the quality and quantity Of each item purchased by the Opera- tion. Standard purchase specifications are used to develop the standard receiving specifications, which facilitate verification Of the quality and quantity of food items delivered by the foodservice operation's suppliers. Once food items are received, they should be stored promptly to prevent or control loss or waste from deterioration or infestation (west et a1., 1977). Time-temperature considera- tions are very important during food storage, varying with the product and the storage area under consideration. 2.52 Equipment Sanitation Equipment sanitation is a critical control point be- cause inadequate cleaning Of equipment and cross- contamination have been identified as two factors that l9 contribute to foodborne disease outbreaks (Bryan, 1978b). Inadequate cleaning of equipment can be corrected if food- service Operators are willing tO develop cleaning schedules and specific procedures for cleaning each piece of equip- ment. Once developed, the proper cleaning methods should be communicated to workers in a planned step-by-step train- ing program (Avery, 1980). The likelihood Of cross- contamination can be minimized through the proper cleaning and sanitizing Of all foodservice equipment and utensils after each changed use. The equipment and utensils fre- quently involved in cross-contamination include knives, cutting boards, food slicing machines, grinders, tables, pots, and pans. 2.53 Personnel Sanitation Personnel sanitation is a critical control point be- cause the human being is Often the common link in foodborne disease outbreaks (Bryan, 1979). Foodservice personnel may contribute directly or indirectly tO microbiological con- tamination (Bobeng and David, 1977). Managers and super- visors Of foodservice employees have the reSponsibility for training their personnel in good foodhandling techniques, personal hygiene, proper cooking and storage methods, and general sanitation. Richardson (1974) stated that the in- competent employee can be responsible for any number of unsanitary conditions in a foodservice establishment that may lead to outbreaks of foodborne illness. It is manage- ment's mission to increase the level Of employee competency 20 through well planned and implemented training programs de- signed specifically for foodservice personnel. 2.54 Time-Temperature Relationship Time-temperature is a critical control point that must be monitored in all process flow stages. ImprOper supervision Of correct time-temperature relationships has resulted in several Outbreaks of foodborne illnesses (Bryan, 1979). The inadequate cooling Of food was associated with most Of the foodborne outbreaks, with bacterial foodborne disease, and frequently with outbreaks that originated from food prepared in foodservice establishments (Bryan, 1978a). Typically, inadequate cooling practices were either failing to refrigerate cooked foods or refrigerating foods in large stock pots or other large containers. Large, bulky masses of fOOd cool very slowly. Other important factors related tO time-temperature include a lapse of a day or more between preparation and service; inadequate thermal processing, canning, or cooking; inadequate reheating; and inadequate hot storage. The time-temperature relationship is based on a tem- perature range identified as the temperature danger zone (Longree, 1972). This zone covers the range Of 45°-140°F (7°-60°C) and takes into account the favorable multiplica- tion temperatures Of Staphylococcus, Salmonella, and fecal Streptococcus. The primary Objective Of food storage, preparation, holding, and reheating should be to minimize the amount Of time food products are exposed to this 21 temperature danger zone. The internal product temperature during chilled food storage or holding should be less than 45°F (7°C), while the internal product temperature during heated food holding should be greater than 140°F (60°C). Establishing time-temperature standards is a practical method for monitoring entree production in foodservice sys- tems (Bobeng and David, 1977). 2.55 Feedback characteristics Of HACCP The HACCP concept is a tool that can be used tO iden- tify and analyze an operation's deficiencies. As a manage- ment tOOl, HACCP works if it is used properly. It is like a template which, if placed on tOp Of a system, can pinpoint deficiencies and potential problem areas within that system. The HACCP concept is not a panacea, but must be used as part Of a comprehensive quality assurance program (Bianco, 1977). Feedback to management is an important aspect Of HACCP, but that information is only meaningful if management uses it tO their advantage. Quality audits are important components Of a quality assurance program, providing information that allows management to "fine tune" the system. 2.6 Microbiological Aspects Of Ground Beef Meat and poultry, and food products they comprise, were identified as the vehicle in over half of the reported outbreaks Of foodborne disease in the United States from 1968 to 1977 in which the vehicle was known (Bryan, 1980). Ground beef accounted for 8.8 percent of the number of meat and poultry products that were reported as foodborne vehicles 22 in outbreaks in the United States during the same ten-year period. One of the primary Objectives of the cooking pro- cess is the thermal destruction Of microorganisms (Crespo and Ockerman, 1977). The pathogens found in ground beef may either survive the cooking process or be introduced into the product after it has been cooked. Cooked hamburger patties are rather unlikely vehicles because they are usually thoroughly cooked and consumed shortly after cooking. The primary health problem in ground beef appears to be associated with eating raw or rare ground beef that contains large numbers Of surviving Salmonella. Inadequate cooking of ground beef menu items (e.g., meatballs, cas- seroles, and meat loaf) may explain the reason behind some Of these reported outbreaks of salmonellosis. Other factors important in foodborne disease outbreaks associated with ground beef may be inadequate refrigeration of leftovers and cross-contamination. Centralized processing of meats has been shown to be economically feasible, and the current trend is toward centralized processing in the meat industry (Shoup and Oblinger, 1976). Merchandising and distribution patterns for fresh meat products are undergoing changes in the meat packing and processing industries. Establishment of cen- tralized fabrication and distribution plants has resulted in the mass production Of fresh meat products in one loca- tion with little or no meat processed at the retail level (Berry and Ai-Ti Chen, 1976). In this system, meat products 23 are initially processed at a location some distance from the retail food outlet or restaurant where they are sold. The centralized processing or commissary foodservice system may be a potentially hazardous design due tO the numerous phases Of product flow, multiple service locations, and time span or distance from the point Of production to the point of ultimate service (Cremer and Chipley, 1977). On the other hand, products that are handled according to prescribed sanitary procedures can be in safe bacteriological condition at the point of service (Dahl, et a1., 1978). The processes Of chopping and grinding enable bacteria present on the meat's surface to be distributed throughout the product. The ultimate bacterial quality and resulting shelf-life Of ground beef depends on the bacterial level Of the trimmings, sanitary conditions during processing, and time and temperature of processing and storage (Berry and Ai-Ti Chen, 1976). 2.61 Aerobic Plate Counts, Total Plate Counts and Standard Plate Counts Aerobic Plate Counts (APCs) provide an estimate of the total number Of viable microorganisms in food according to the medium employed and the time and temperature Of in- cubation (Speck, 1976). The Total Plate Count (TPC) and Standard Plate Count (SPC) estimate the number of living microbial cells present in a food product (Jay, 1978). The terms "APC," "TPC," and "SPC" all refer to the same general procedure. APC is the Oldest term used, while TPC is the 24 newest. The basic procedure for all three methods is essen- tially the same. Aliquots of food samples are blended, serially diluted in an appropriate diluent, plated in or onto a suitable agar medium, incubated at an appropriate temperature for a given time, and all visible colonies are counted using a Quebec counter (Jay, 1978). In most cases, when the product being analyzed is ground beef, the media of choice is Plate Count Agar (PCA), incubated at 90°F (32°C) for 48 hours. TPCs are of value to the extent that they indicate the adequacy Of sanitation control and temperature control during processing, transport, and storage. They are also useful in revealing sources of contamination during manufac- ture, and in forming an Opinion about incipient spoilage, probable shelf-life, uncontrolled thawing Of frozen foods, and failure to maintain refrigerated temperatures for chilled foods (ICMSF, 1978). TPCs, as indicators Of sanitary quality in fresh foods, are inadequate in revealing the presence Of pathogens (Jay, 1978). TPCs do not specifically identify the class or classes of microorganisms present. Moreover, it is also possible to have bacterial toxin and low total counts in foods because toxin-producing organisms have mul- tiplied and produced toxins that remain stable to conditions that may not favor the continued survival Of cells (Jay, 1978). TPCs do not necessarily reveal the kind or likeli- hood Of spoilage in a food product. 25 2.62 Traditional Microbiological'Standards Traditional microbiological standards for a food prod- uct were based on the twin concerns Of product safety and shelf-life. The primary Objective behind these standards for foods was the protection of the consumer from food poisoning and deteriorating products. Using these tradi- tional standards, a food product was believed to be free of a microbiological hazard provided the level of a Specified pathogen or indicator did not exceed a given number per gram or unit (Jay, 1978). 2.63 Sampling Plans The International Commission on Microbiological Specifications for Food (ICMSF, 1974) has recommended sampl- .ing plans to put microbiological sampling on a sound statis- tical basis. The sampling plan for ground beef recommends both SPC (TPC) and Salmonella counts. As with all attribute plans, the number of sample units from a given lot (n) and the maximum allowable number Of sample units that may ex- ceed the microbiological criterion (c) are specified. A novel feature Of the ICMSF plans is the existence of three- attribute plans (acceptable-marginally acceptable- unacceptable). 2.64 Salmonellae Salmonellae are enteric organisms classified in the family Enterobacteriaceae. Salmonellae are gram-positive, asporogenous, motile (by peritrichous flagellae) or non- motile, rod-shaped cells (Bryan, 1968). Based on the 26 antigens salmonellae possess, approximately 1,400 different serotypes have been identified. Salmonellae are aerobic or facultatively anaerobic organisms (Bryan, 1968). These microbes are ubiquitous, and foods of animal origin have been implicated widely in Outbreaks Of foodborne diseases associated with these organisms (Ayres, 1969). Epidemiologic association has been made between inges- tion of raw hamburger and the incidence Of salmonellosis caused by tartrate-negative, phagetype-two strains Of Salmonella typhimurium (Bryan, 1980). Salmonella typhimur- ium was the serotype most frequently isolated in humans in the United States in 1979 (CDC, 1980). S; typhimurium also was found in samples Of ground beef Obtained from retail stores (Swaminathan et a1., 1978). Investigations in two states Of salmonellosis outbreaks caused by antibiotic-resistant strains Of Salmonella newport revealed a significant association between illness and the consumption Of raw hamburger (Bryan, 1980). Salmonella infantus has been identified in one sample Of ground beef (Shoup and Oblinger, 1976). Salmonella enteriditis ser. worthington has been isolated from ground beef and textured soy protein patties (Foster et a1.,l978). Ladiges and Foster (1974) found no salmonellae in any Of 100 samples Of ground beef and concluded that the raw materials, processing area, and personnel were relatively free Of salmonellae contamination. 27 In the annual summary of foodborne diseases for 1978 issued by the Center for Disease Control in November Of 1979, it was reported that salmonellae accounted for over one-third of the confirmed Outbreaks (CDC, 1978). Salmon— ellae outbreaks were caused by a variety of vehicles includ- ing meat, poultry, dairy products, salads, and Mexican food. Previous culture surveys of domestic and imported beef by the United States Department of Agriculture have shown Salmonella contamination in l to 2 percent Of the samples (CDC, 1977). Beef, if improperly handled or improperly cooked, regardless Of origin, is a potential source Of Salmonella for humans. In spite of the work that has been done to reduce its incidence, salmonellosis remains one of the major food- borne hazards tO human health (Childers, et a1., 1973). Increases in the incidence Of beef as the source of salmon- ellosis have been attributed by Cohen and Blake (1977) to such factors as mass production, mass distribution, and the presence Of Salmonella in animal feeds. ImprOper handling of meat could contribute to this increase. In most foods, salmonellae are easily killed by heat. The effectiveness of a given heat treatment depends on several factors, including the water activity, pH, time, temperature, and the number of organisms (Foster et a1., 1970). Salmonellae exhibit growth inhibition at aw values less than 0.94 in media with neutral pH (Jay, 1978). The pH of Optimum salmonellae growth is around neutrality 28 with values above 9.0 and below 4.0 bactericidal. The best growth takes place in the pH range of 6.6 to 8.2. Salmonel- lae prefer temperatures ranging from 42°F (5.5°C) to 113°F (45°C), depending on the species (Jay, 1978). The chief executives of several corporations have es- tablished corporate policies stating that their products .will not be released for sale if contaminated with salmon- ellae. Other corporate policies have focused on product temperature control, acceptable storage conditions, and standardized production methods to minimize the health problems associated with salmonellae. Tompkin (1976) sug- gested that such policies have had a strengthening effect on quality assurance programs. Microbiological indices Of beef quality would appear to be low TPCs and the absence of salmonellae. Although most writers note that non-pathogenic microbial destruction Of beef can be attributed to psychrOphiles, none has recom- mended psychrophile counts. In any event, ground beef does not now appear to represent a serious health problem in the United States. Nevertheless, abuse could lead to difficul- ties so the salmonellae hazard must be regarded as present. 2.7 Nutritional Aspects Of Ground Beef One Of the major Objectives of food protection pro- grams is tO meet consumer expectations. Others have sug- gested that, tO be successful in the foodservice market- place, the restaurateur should strive to exceed the con- sumer's expectation level. These expectations are that 29 food be safe, that it be nutritious, and that it be honestly represented (Nitzke and Christensen, 1979). The increased consumer interest in the nutritional quality of food prod- ucts was stimulated by the 1969 White House Conference on Food, Nutrition and Health; by the ten-state nutrition sur- vey conducted by the 0.8. Department of Health, Education and Welfare; by the Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (HANES); by public statements of nutritionists, consumer advocates, and others concerned about the nation's food supply; and by the need to expand food protection beyond food sanitation. Nutrition has become the subject of con- troversy in American society, as well as a topic of great interest tO industry, government, and the average consumer (Anonymous, 1978). 2.71 Consumer Concern about Nutrition Consumer concern about the nutritional adequacy Of restaurant menus, compounded by impending nutrition label- ing regulations for restaurants, increases pressure on foodservice firms to respond with detailed public information on the nutritional quality Of restaurant meals (Cichy, 1980). According to Nitzke and Christensen (1980), the consumer concern over nutritional adequacy would logically encourage restaurateurs to respond with detailed, public information about nutritional value. Given the technical complexities of nutrition analysis and the status Of governmental regula- tions, however, it is not surprising that so few restaurants refer to nutrition in advertising and menus (Riggs, 1979). 30 It is ironic that the government's overwhelming concern for accuracy on labels has posed one Of the largest barriers to nutrition labeling. In its eagerness to prevent and punish deception, the government has kept any mention Of nutrition out of most restaurant menus and advertisements (Riggs, 1979). However, some fast-food chains, at the urging of the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, have made nutrition information available to customers in their outlets (Anony- mous, 1979a). Today's American consumer wants information on nutri— tion, food ingredients, and the means tO Obtain a nutri- tionally balanced diet (Lachance, 1973). As more and more meals are consumed in foodservice facilities, it becomes increasingly important to evaluate the nutritive value of foodservice meals (Chem and Lachance, 1974). Appledorf (1974) has appealed for documentation of nutrient values Of typical limited-menu restaurant meals. Greecher and Shannon (1977) warn that any attempts to improve the nutritive value Of restaurant meals must include efforts to lead consumers to make wiser food choices, as well as encourage the food— service industry tO provide rich sources of all nutrients on their menus. TO the extent that a person or a society relies on food from foodservice systems, so ought those systems demon- strate that the customer's faith in the system is well placed. It follows that, whenever claims Of nutritional adequacy are made, the entrepreneur must substantiate those 31 claims. In the final analysis, the emphasis that the res- taurateur places on nutrition in the foodservice operation directly depends on the desires Of the target market. 2.72 Index Of Nutritional Quality Once the consumer is given nutrient information, that individual is still faced with the task of determining whether or not the food is nutritious. To provide some guidance, nutritionists have developed the Index Of Nutri- tional Quality (INQ), an expression of the nutrient density of a food (Guthrie, 1979). The INQ expresses the relation- ship between the extent tO which a food meets the require- ments for a specific nutrient and the extent to which the food meets the needs for energy. The INQ for a food is the _percent U.S. Recommended Daily Dietary Allowance (RDA) for each nutrient divided by the percent daily energy requirement. The degree to which a food satisfies nutrient need is classified as a "source" or "good or excellent source." It has been prOposed that a food having an INQ of one or more for four nutrients or an INQ of two for two nutrients makes a "significant" contribution to the nutrient intake and may, therefore, be identified as nutritious (Guthrie, 1979). A fOOd is considered tO be a source of a nutrient if it has an INQ of one and if one serving provides at least 2 percent Of the U.S. RDA for that nutrient. TO qualify as a good or excellent source, the food must have an INQ Of 1.5 and pro- vide 10 percent of the U.S. RDA in each serving. Guthrie (1979) claims that easily Obtained values in food composition 32 tables are adequate tO predict the nutrient value Of foods because they are close enough to values determined by direct chemical analyses. An important aspect Of the evaluation of product qual- ity is analyses of the nutritional characteristics of that product (Lund, 1979). If one recognizes that foods are com- plex mixtures of biochemicals and that reactions between these chemicals are dependent on many factors in the environ- ment, it becomes Obvious that different processes will have varying effects on these biochemicals (Lund, 1979). The major consideration in evaluating food processing, from a nutritional standpoint, is the trade-Off between increased food availability and the effects that each of the various kinds Of processing have on nutrition. 2.73 Nutrient Retention Many factors are responsible for the complexity Of the problem Of nutrient retention. At a minimum, however, the compositional and environmental factors must be considered (Karel, 1979). Even if a menu is correctly planned with the Objective Of Optimal nutrition, many nutrient losses can still take place in the individual unit operations which make up the foodservice sequence: i.e., purchasing, storage, preparation, cooking, holding, and serving (Laughlin, 1961). The critical control pointsixia good manufacturing practices program to assure optimal nutrient retention would probably be associated with purchasing, prepreparation, cooking, and holding (Livingston and Chang, 1979). 33 Storage times and temperatures may have a significant effect on nutrient retention in foods. Three stages Of the foodservice process appear to require particular attention in terms of nutrient retention: raw material handling, fOOd preparation, and the service Of prepared foods (Livingston et a1., 1973). The materials and methods in- volved in food preparation influence the item's nutritional quality (Nitzke and Christensen, 1980). The major sources Of nutrient losses during preparation and service Of foods Of animal origin are thaw drip, cooking drip, nutrient leaching, heat losses, and excessive steam table holding in foodservice Operations (Erdman, 1979). The losses, of course, vary with the product considered, the nutrients Of interest in the product, and the specific cooking and holding techniques. Commissary or centralized foodservice systems may enhance problems with nutrient retention (Livingston et a1., 1973). More research is needed on the nutritional effects Of common food preparation processes (Riggs, 1979). 2.8 Sensory Aspects Of Ground Beef Bobeng and David (1977) defined the quality of food as a composite of microbiological, nutritional, and sensory attributes. Sensory methods are used tO determine whether foods differ in such qualities as taste, Odor, juiciness, tenderness, or texture, and the extent Of these differences (Paul and Palmer, 1972). Sensory tests are also used to determine consumer preferences among foods and whether a 34 certain food product is acceptable to a specified consumer group (Paul and Palmer, 1972). 2.81 Taste Panels The two general types of sensory evaluations of foods are consumer tests to determine acceptability or preferences and difference tests to determine quality differences. Sen- sory evaluation is concerned with human evaluation and measurement of physical stimuli (Larmond, 1973). Pangborn (1964) emphasized that laboratory panels are not miniature consumer surveys. Some companies, however, prefer to use employee panels to assess preference or acceptability of a food product before testing that product on consumers (Hirsh, 1971). Employee panels can be utilized to predict consumer acceptability or preference responses, provided the employee panels are composed Of persons similar to the potential con- sumers who will comprise the non-employee panel (Hirsh, 1975). 2.82 Sensogy Quality Standards Sensory quality standards for retail meats may include appearance, such as color, size, and shape; kinestheticsf such as texture, mouthfeel, consistency, and viscosity; and flavor senses, such as taste and smell (Holland, 1979). The purpose of sensory standards is not as much to focus on consumer protection as it is to serve as a means for proces- sors to determine consumer preferences. The Objective then becomes the tailoring Of the product to satisfy these con- sumer preferences. Sensory attributes, which are generally 35 buyer-seller specifications, are ultimately valuable purchas- ing tools Of the consumer (Holland, 1979). 2.82 Sensory Evaluation and:guality Assurance Sensory evaluation makes an important contribution to an effective quality assurance program. Sensory principles can be applied in all stages Of product flow, from incoming inspection to in-process controls to final product inspection and product surveillance (Reece, 1979). Sensory testing has been included in the quality assurance programs of several leading food companies because it Offers three important advantages (Nakayama and Wessman, 1979). Sensory evaluation identifies the presence or absence Of perceptible differences, pinpoints the important sensory characteristics of a product in a fast, quantifiable manner, and identifies particular problems that cannot be detected with other analytical techniques. CHAPTER 3 QUALITY ASSURANCE/QUALITY CONTROL ANALYSES 3.1 Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Concept The Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) ap- proach is a preventive system of control designed to monitor and minimize the microbiological risks associated with the production Of a food product. HACCP entails pinpointing sensitive ingredients, critical process points,and relevant human factors related tO product safety (Bauman, 1974). The HACCP procedure has been implemented in quality assurance programs with the hope Of preventing mishaps. The HACCP procedure involves analyses of raw ingredients, the pro- cessing flow, and the possibility Of consumer abuse of the product. 3.11 Hazards Associated with Foodservice Systems The hazards to which raw materials are exposed are disclosed by an assessment of the product history prior to arrival at the commissary. These hazards would include chemical, biological, and physical contaminants. Analysis of processing hazards involves a determination Of whether good manufacturing practices were used, whether the hazards of the process were avoided or eliminated, employee and equipment sanitation, and product packaging and storage 36 37 controls. An evaluation of consumer abuse hazards includes the probable methods Of product contamination during trans- portation, distribution, and consumer use. 3.12 Process Flow Diagram TO be effective, the HACCP concept must be applied at each process step in the flow of the product through the foodservice system. HACCP begins with the develOpment of a process flow diagram that includes all pertinent processing factors and details and depicts every stage and step neces- sary in the Operation tO produce a given menu item. The process flow diagram is specific for the food, process, equipment, and foodservice system involved (Petterson and Gunnerson, 1974). Figure 3.120 presents a generalized form Of the process flow diagram for the production of the ground beef patty sandwich in the commissary foodservice system under study. After the process flow diagram has been developed, critical control points are identified. Critical control points are those processing steps during which a loss Of control could result in an unacceptable food safety risk. The critical control points vary with the type Of food- service system. The nature Of the food product, including pH, chemical composition, water activity, and thermal con- ductivity, as well as the amount Of processing Of the prod- uct can directly affect the critical control points. Grind- ing and mixing may enhance the likelihood Of microbial con- tamination and proliferation through the breaking up Of 38 I PURCHASE I r—ficlaws—I I STORE REFRIGERATED DEBOX 1 . v I MIX 7 e — I ”X I PATTY I m \ LOAD I REFRIGERATE I l I ASSEMBLE/LOAD I 1 TRANSPORT l ____________ 1__________._ FIGURE 3.120 GENERALIZED PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM FOR GROUND BEEF PATTY SANDWICH PRODUCTION IN A COMMISSARY FOODSERVICE SYSTEM 39 I RECEIVE I I _ STORE REFRIGERATED WALK-IN srons REFRIGERATED " DRAWER I I REMOVE PAPER I I COOK I I ASSEMBLE PLAT I PICK-UP I %« FIGURE 3.120 (CONT'D.) 40 clumps Of microbial cells, generation of greatly increased substrate surface area, aeration, and increased contact and dispersion of contaminants throughout the food mass (Petterson and Gunnerson, 1974). 3.13 Critical Control Points In general, the critical control points of a food- service system can be classified into four broad categories: ingredient control and storage, equipment sanitation, person- nel sanitation, and time-temperature relationships. Ingre- dient control and storage involves a complete evaluation of incoming ingredients to determine the extent of contamina- tion. Control of incoming ingredients can best be achieved through the development Of, and adherence to, standard pur- chase specifications, detailing in writing the exact quality and quantity desired in a product. These specifications should be the principle focus Of all communications between the firm and its suppliers, so they must express as pre- cisely as possible just what the foodservice Operation desires. COpies of the specifications should be used by the foodservice's receiving department to check incoming ingre— dients against what was specified. Receipt Of food prod- ucts is not completed until apprOpriate test procedures determine the presence Of potential hazards and check quality and quantity criteria. The current Meat Receiving form from the commissary under study is included in Appen- dix A. In-house raw material control is essential to main— tain ingredients contamination-free, and retesting Of 41 ingredients during in-house storage is a necessary aspect of ingredient control and storage. Equipment and facility sanitation is crucial for the prevention and control of microbiological contamination of ingredients and finished products. The key to success in this category Of critical control points requires the devel- Opment and use of detailed cleaning and sanitizing schedules for each piece Of processing equipment and area of produc- tion. These critical control points should be monitored on a regular basis to determine the effectiveness Of the clean- ing and sanitizing processes. Personal cleanliness is no less important because human beings are potential carriers Of foodborne disease organisms. Foodservice workers must be made aware of the necessity of personal hygiene, groom- ing, acceptable work uniforms, and foodhandling practices. Time-temperature critical control points are those at which the possibility for microbiological proliferation exists in a food product. Each raw and finished food product has identifiable maximum storage times that govern quality changes. Refrigerated and frozen storage tempera- tures will tend tO limit these changes, but will not stop quality deterioration entirely. Spoilage of food products can occur if strict time-temperature limits are not obeyed. Because Of the unique nature of a commissary food- service system, the critical control points are not all under one roof. Therefore, monitoring the critical control 42 points may be more difficult than initially expected. Since the food products are initially processed in the commissary and then distributed to the individual restaurant for final preparation, the HACCP system must extend to the point of ground beef consumption. The control points associated with production Of the ground beef patty sandwich in the commis- sary foodservice system under study have been identified and listed in Table 3.130. These critical control points were identified after the process flow diagram was developed for this food product. 3.2 The Pareto Principle and Analysis In 1906, Vilfredo Pareto advanced the theory of a logarithmic law of income distribution (Juran et a1., 1962). He Observed that the majority Of the wealth in a society was held by a minority Of the populace. When this idea is ap- plied tO the frequency Of defects in a product, the unequal distribution is described as the "vital few" versus the "trivial many." The quality assurance personnel can then concentrate their efforts on the "vital few" having dis— tinguished them from the "trivial many" (Juran and Gryna, 1970). 3.21 Objectives of Pareto Principle and Analysis One Of the Objectives Of quality assurance is to monitor adequately the quality of a product with a minimum Of investigation costs. The economics involved in monitor— ing quality on a regular basis dictate a cost-benefit ap- proach. That is, the greatest benefits should be realized for the costs incurred. This maximizing of resources is 43 XX X >4 XXX XXXX ><><>< >< XXNNNXXX ><><><>< Omoa\oaosomm¢ mumummflummm Omen mmmo sound ocfim ocfiuw xwz omumoo OOHHO RH: OOHHm\omem xonoo o>m30uoa2 ooumuomaumon ououm cououm ououm O>Hooom ommzousm mHmmZOHaflqmm mmbadmmmzma IfiZHB ZOHBmmmaoom NMfimmHZZOU ¢ 2H mUHZDZ98nom QOIxOfim mesam OHOEommm xooo momma m>OEmm HOBMHO ooumuomfiumou ououm ommooa ceixawz ooumuomfiumou ououm o>wooom uuommcmue mHmmZOHfidqmm mMDfidmmmSmB IMZHB ZOHB¢9H2coo meuom m I I I I OOH m Homsm meuom O mN H mN H om N moumHm meHOh m I I OH H cm s Hmmmon xmsuom m I I cm H on m omens» ms umecHuO N OOH N I I I I Ho>oo N¢ ummmom m I I I I OOH m mOmHo HOOOHHO OH m H mH N om mH woman HOOOHHU . OH ON m OH H Oh OH poops» Hw HOOOHHO m I I I I OOH m He Hmemos m cm m ON H ON H no» H* MO>O>OOU m me e OH H me O uHon N* no>o>coo HH I I I I OOH HH OOHm He HO>O>OOU OH mN v I I mp NH uHoo H¢ Howo>cou h on N I I Ob m OOOHQ ummemsouomm NH OO m ON N OO m OHnmu HOHOHmOmHONm mefle Hosm m OOH N I I I I mezzo Modem zmxda Hmsoa N.oz Hmaoe N .02 Hdeoe N.oz maHm mmmzm no mo m so a mo m mmzm mmmzoz Heeos HoazeO , Hoezev.oe.HOOHO AHOOH.Oe va mem memHOmzmmBzH 30H mmmOzH mmmoom OH\mmHZOHOO .maHOmmm Ome meimmHmOOmewo A.O.ezooe Om~.m mamme 49 TABLE 3.240 TPCS AND MEAT CONTACT SCORES AND PRIORITY RANKINGS OF SELECTED EQUIPMENT LOCATIONS IN THE COMMISSARY MEAT ROOM SCORE SWAB 1 PRIORIT SITE TPC MEAT CONTACT RANKING Hydrauflaker table Hydrauflaker blade Conveyor #1 belt Conveyor #2 belt Conveyor #1 tOp Grinder #1 throat Grinder auger Grinder #2 throat Formax plates Shovel White tub Hopper #1 Grinder blade Formax auger Hopper #2 cover Formax conveyor belt Paper chute Barrel Formax hopper Sst tub Conveyor #1 side Formax plunger OIL» OIIO RIIH F‘I‘ F‘Ln OIL» F'r“ F‘tv hard P‘I‘ h‘t‘ P“ N thO N BJLA OIL» w PJIH H RJIO N F‘I‘ H FJIH F‘P‘ H Oscm O\.O m-I» OIL» OIL» OIL» OIIO RIIO FJIH PJIA F‘IA k4 Scoop 11 = heavy, 2 = moderate, 3 = light meat contact. 2Represents the mathematical product of the historical TPCs and meat contact scores. 50 Priority rankings for the swab sites in the meat room provided the quality assurance staff with a rational tool for use in identifying critical locations. The staff was then able to focus attention on the most serious sources of contamination. The Pareto analysis, coupled with a tech- nical review Of this Operation, provided a rational means for selecting leading critical locations requiring high priority for corrective action (i.e., action to reduce ad- ditional microbial contamination). The initial emphasis Of the swab tests was on the sensitive locations having the highest priority ranking. Once this equipment was cleaned and kept clean, priority rankings were recalculated. This reranking is done to up- date the "vital few" and "trivial many" categories. The quality assurance staff requires the full OOOpera- tion Of the sanitation crew for the program to be success- ful. The priority ranking report generated by quality assurance can be used to redirect the sanitation crew's efforts to the "vital few" critical areas. This report provides the basis for action on the part of the sanitation crew and the criteria for evaluation of the sanitation crew's efforts. 3.3 Production of Ground Beef Patties The commissary meat room produces approximately 17 tons per week of the ground beef patties under investiga- tion in this study. This volume accounts for over 55 per- cent Of the total annual ground beef production, which is 51 in excess Of 1,500 tons. Each patty weighs approximately 1.6 Ounces (45.4 grams). The stacks of finished patties are packed into plastic bags placed in plastic lugs Of ap- proximately 25 pounds each. The commissary produces the ground beef patties from fresh and frozen boneless beef (nominally 85 percent lean and 15 percent fat) and beef plates (nominally 50 percent lean and 50 percent fat). The lean fraction is about 60 percent moisture. The fresh beef is purchased weekly in the state and Canada, while the frozen beef is shipped from Australia, Canada, and New Zealand less frequently, depend- ing on market supply and price. There are no detailed, written standard purchase specifications for either product. The meat is delivered to the commissary by common carrier. The receiving department performs nO inspection Of the delivery truck, but does verify, by count, the num- ber Of incoming 60-pound boxes of frozen meat. Usually, six to ten Of the frozen boxes are set aside for lab tests to determine total plate counts (TPCs) and percent fat, but no similar analysis Of fresh meat is undertaken. Fresh meat is delivered at the commissary in 2,000-pound containers. NO verification of either fresh or frozen product weight is done. The commissary produces the ground beef patties in the meat room, using the steps outlined in the process flow diagram (Figure 3.120). A combination Of fresh and frozen plates and frozen boneless beef is used to prevent patty 52 formation problems, such as the sticking of the meat in the Formax machine when all fresh is used. This combination imprOves the texture of the patty and minimizes patty de- formation. The beef plates are mixed with the boneless beef for flavor contribution. The batch master, who has worked in the meat room for over 15 years, decides, on the basis Of the look and feel Of the ground beef, when the batch has the correct composi- tion. The lab staff also determines the percent fat in the patties by a modification of the Babcock procedure, the desired final patty composition being 78 percent lean and 22 percent fat. The weight of the patties is thought to be controllable by making adjustments to the patty machine. 3.4 Analysis Of Patty Weights The ground beef patties are made wi’tha Formax patty machine fitted with a four-hole die and having a capacity Of 200 patties per minute (1,200 pounds per hour). The machine is fed from a hopper having a holding capacity of 500 pounds. Several raw product factors may influence the densities and, therefore, the final weight of the patties. Percentages Of fat, amounts Of fresh or frozen boneless beef and beef plates, and the product temperature may influence the patty weight. Machine setting and other factors that may affect the patty weight probably include the temperature of the meat room, the size of the die, machine speed, the pressure setting on the patty machine, and the amount of product in the hOpper. 53 3.41 Data Collection Ground beef patty weights were recorded on six differ- ent days at the commissary. On each date, the following information was collected: batch-—indicating a single, reasonably homogeneous combination of the separate beef and beef fat ingredients, usually 500 pounds, and to which no further adjustments or additions are made; sample--the num- ber of series Of 40 patties collected from a single batch; position—-1, 2, 3, or 4, meaning the die location reading from left to right facing the exit part Of the machine; replicate--one through ten, meaning the order of production was preserved; weight--individua1 net patty weight in grams; and psi--the pressure setting in pounds per square inch On the machine at the time the patties were formed. These data are presented in Appendix F and summarized in Table 3.410. Patty weights were recorded with a tOp-loading Mettler digital readout display analytical balance, accurate tO 0.01 grams. The balance was zeroed and checked to be certain it was level before weighing each group Of 40 patties. The patty machine automatically places a paper separator between each patty. An unused paper separator was weighed and the patty was placed on top of the paper and the total weight was recorded. The paper separator that had been added by the patty machine was removed (as it would be at the res- taurant) prior to recording the patty weight. Net patty weights were calculated by taking the difference between 54 TABLE 3.410 SAMPLING SCHEDULE FOR THE PROCESS CAPABILITY STUDY AND THE ANALYSIS OF COVARI'ANCE OF NET PATTY WEIGHTS NUMBER OF DATE, 1980 PSI BATCHES PATTIES August 26 150 3 120 August 26 140 2 80 September 4 125 l 40 September 23 140 1 40 September 29 140 4 160 October 7 130 11 160 October 21 140 11 160 Total 13 760 1 Four forty-patty samples. 55 the patty plus the unused separator and the weight of the paper separator. 3.42 Covariant Analysis An analysis Of covariance was performed on all 760 patty weights using the GENSTAT V program on the Cyber 750 computer system at Michigan State University. The covariant was psi and the results looked at the effect Of this regres- sion variable and position, sample within batch, replicate, and batch on the dependent variable, weight. The GENSTAT V program adjusted the data to an average psi to allow analy— sis Of the other independent effects. The model used for the analysis Of covariance was: weight = u + batch + sample within batch + position + replicate I position by replicate + 8 x psi I error This mixed model assumes that batch, replicate, and sample are all random and that position is fixed. 3.43 Percent Fat in the Pretest vs. Percent Fat in the Patty The percentage Of fat in the fresh and boneless beef, beef plates, and finished patties is measured routinely by the commissary lab staff, using a variation Of the Babcock test. Glacial acetic acid (50 percent) plus perchloric acid (50 percent) were combined with a nine-gram sample Of meat in a Paley bottle. The sample was hydrolyzed for ap- proximately 15 minutes in a water bath at 208°F (98°C). After digestion, more Of the acetic—perchloric acid was added to force the fat to rise in the neck of the Paley 56 bottle. A few drOps of glymOl (mineral oil) were added to depress the meniscus and the percent fat was read with the aid of calipers. The percent fat was recorded on the Meat Daily Weight and Fat Report included in Appendix A. The firm's stated Objective is to produce a patty with 22 percent fat and 78 percent lean. Because fat is less dense than muscle tissue, the influence Of the percent fat found during the pretest ought to be correlated with the percent fat in the finished patty unless the meat room batch master is able to make ad- justments. Thirty-four pairs Of numbers (see Appendix C), representing the percent fat in the pretest and the related percent fat in the post test were analyzed with the aid Of the Interactive Data Analysis (IDA) program on the Hewlett Packard system at Michigan State University. The IDA program used least-squares linear regression tO predict a dependent value (percent fat in the patty) from an independent value (percent fat in the pretest). The program assumed a linear relationship between x and y, determined by evaluating the scatter plot Of the data. If the scatter plot reveals a linear relationship, then linear regression may be an adequate predictive model. The cor- relation between x and y must also be checked, because a high positive correlation indicates that the independent variable will be a good predictor of the dependent variable. If both the check of the scatter plot and the correlation 57 yield credible results, regression can be used as a pre- dictor. When analyzing the results tO determine whether re- gression is a good predictive model, the residuals (error terms) must be evaluated in each Of the following three areas: normality, independence, and homoscedasticity (Ling and Roberts, 1980). Normality indicates that the residuals are distributed along a normal probability dis- tribution. The normality Of the residuals was checked by using a normal cumulative probability plot Of the residuals. If the errors are not normal, regression analysis is still acceptable because regression is robust with respect to normality. Therefore, the model is unaffected by the fact that the errors are not normally distributed and the model can still be used as a predictor. Although normality is important, the regression model has been shOwn to be robust with respect to non-normality so it is not necessary to expend an effort to analyze for normality. Independence means that the errors occur randomly, and that the error terms are not related tO, or influenced by, each other or the independent variable. If the residuals are not independent, the regression coefficient will be biased, indicating that the value to be predicted will be either tOO low or tOO high in relation tO the true value. The independence Of the residuals was determined by in- specting a Sequence plot Of the residuals and evaluating the autocorrelation function. 58 Homoscedasticity refers to the errors or residuals having a constant variance through time. The amount Of error through time is constant; therefore, the residuals are stationary with a constant mean. The residuals are all expected to have a mean Of zero. Homoscedasticity is a necessary condition; otherwise regression cannot be used to predict the dependent variable from the independent vari- able. Homoscedasticity was determined by using a scatter plot Of the residuals vs. the fitted values. 3.44 The Percent Fat in the Pretest vs. Patty weight The regression program was also used to evaluate whether or not the patty weight could be predicted from the percent fat in the pretest. Using 113 pairs of data points (see Appendix D), a regression was run with patty weight as the dependent variable. The IDA program tested the data for independence, normality, and homoscedasticity. The coeffi- cient of determination, R2, measured the proportion of variance in patty weight that could be attributed to the percent fat in the pretest. 3.5 Process Capability Analysis Of Patty Weights A process is a combination of materials, machines, methods, and people used to create a product (Juran et a1., 1962). A process capability analysis is a method for cor- recting an existing problem with a process, if that problem can be corrected. A complete process capability analysis consists of several key components. First, the specifica- tion tolerance must be established. In the case Of the 59 ground beef patty production in this commissary foodservice system, the factor studied was patty weight. The commissary currently Specifies a patty weight of 45.4 grams 1'1 gram for each patty produced. The Objective is to produce ten patties to a pound Of ground beef. Next, the process capability analysis determines where, along the scale Of measurement, the process is "centered." The procedure identifies whether or not the process is in- herently capable Of meeting the specified tolerances. In addition, the analysis aids in management decisions on whether it is economically feasible tO reduce the vari- ability so as tO increase conformity to the established tolerances. 3.51 Specifics Of a Process Capability Analysis A process capability analysis begins with obtaining certain information about the product under study. Specif- ically, the product name, unit inspected, the machine/line, the inspector, the quality factor, and the specification with the minimum and maximum tolerances were all recorded. Preserving the order of collection, the data was collected and tabulated in pennit groups until 5 groups were assembled. In the process capability analysis of patty weights, a total Of 760 (p = 4 and k = 190) samples were collected during six different visits to the commissary. Next, the mean, I, and the range, R, of each p—unit group was computed and recorded. The average range R was calculated by taking the sum Of the k ranges and dividing 60 by k. The upper and lower three-sigma limits Of the range were then computed using R and the appropriate D and D 3 4 factors from ASTM (1951). The Observed ranges were then examined and any that were outside Of the three-sigma limits were discarded. These values were removed on the grounds that they very likely came from assignable causes and, if the values were left in, the true capability Of the process would less likely be determined. . The average range and new limits were then recalcu- lated and the data were reexamined to determine which ranges were outside Of the new limits. This process was repeated until all Of the remaining ranges fell within the limits last calculated. The standard deviation was then estimated from the final R and the appropriate d2 factor from ASTM (1951). The standard deviation measures the piece-to-piece variability (Juran and Gryna, 1970). The Observed average value of the patty weights, E, was then calculated from the sum Of the individual pfunit means. The grand average measures the centering (aim) Of the process (Juran and Gryna, 1970). The next step in- volved the construction of frequency and cumulative fre- ' I quency distributions. The p_individual measured values, xl were sorted and placed into suitable equal-sized intervals and the number Of xi's in each interval was counted. The number Of intervals, j, was calculated by Sturgis's rule and they covered a span Of the natural limits of the pro- cess, six standard deviations. Both interval size and 61 interval boundaries were calculated and the number of xi's in each interval was tallied. Finally, the frequency (per— centage) histogram and the cumulative percentage (normal probability) plot were constructed and analyzed. This anal- ysis leads to an identification of the causes of the dif- ferences between inherent and actual variability. 3.52 Alternative Courses of ActiOn Juran and Gryna (1970) suggested several alternative courses of action tO eliminate defective work, depending on the results of the process capability analysis. If it is concluded that the process is capable Of meeting the spec- ified tolerances, it would be necessary to recenter the pro- cess aim. On the other hand, if the process is not capable of meeting tolerances, either the tolerances should be widened or a basic process change must be made. Alterna- tively, the organization could sort defectives. All of these possible courses of action have economic implications: changing a process may require an investment in capital; widening a tolerance could reduce the value Of a product and adversely affect the firm's market Share. Ultimately, the decision Of whether or not to alter a process is one that must be made by management, based, in part, on a costrbenefit analysis. 3.6 Microbiological Analyses The commissary lab monitored the microbiological con- dition of incoming raw fresh and frozen beef on a Sporadic basis. The attention to such collection directly depended 62 on the lab staff's workload and the number of staff members working on a given day. With a finite number Of resources available, the lab staff concentrated on the products pro- duced within the commissary rather than the products re- ceived by the commissary for processing. In addition to raw and finished product microbiological analyses, the lab staff also performs surface swabs Of meat room equipment. Total Plate Counts (TPCS) on the finished ground beef patty were used as indicators of product quality. The United States Department Of Agriculture (USDA) inspector also looked at TPCS weekly Since this commissary had a pre- approved program. 3.61 Total Plate Counts The lab staff relies on Total Plate Counts (TPCS) tO - evaluate the microbiological condition Of incoming raw prod- ucts and products produced in the commissary. TPCS refer to the total number Of living organisms in a sample. Prior to plating, the sample was diluted from 10.2 through 10-6, since the counts are usually relatively high on ground beef. The media Of choice was PCA, and single plates of each dilu- tion were incubated at 90°F (32°C) for 48 hours. The lab TM, which was rehydrated in staff used dehydrated Bacto—PCA the lab. After incubation, the number Of colonies, on plates containing between 30 tO 300 colonies, was determined with the aid of a Quebec counter. TPCS are Of value for the total number of living microorganisms present with no 63 indication as to the type of microbes. Specific microorgan- isms can be enumerated from a sample by utilizing other com- binations Of media and time-temperature Of incubation. The original raw product receiving procedures at the commissary specified that TPCS should be determined on six to ten "randomly" chosen boxes of meat. The accept-reject decision was based on the USDA'S recommended limits of <100,000 organisms/gram TPC. However, due to resource limitations relative tO time and staff, the lab decreased the emphasis on incoming product evaluation. The inspec- tion of incoming frozen beef was done more regularly than that Of incoming fresh beef. TPCS were also Obtained from meat room equipment using a modification of the above procedure. Four Of the 23 swab sites described under the Pareto principle and analysis section were selected at "random" on both Tuesdays and Thursdays. After the location was swabbed with the Swube tube containing the sterile solution, the solution was plated directly with no dilutions on PCA. One plate was incubated at 90°F (32°C) for 48 hours for each of the four locations. The TPC was estimated by counting four grids on the Quebec Colony Counter, taking the average, and multiply- ing by 65 (total number of grids). Results were reported as colonies/16 square inches of surface area. The swab tests are taken during the lab staff member's early morning pre-Operation inspection of the meat room. In addition to the swabs, the Daily Commissary Sanitation 64 Meat Department form (Appendix A) is filled Out by the lab inspector. The USDA inspector monitors these TPC values weekly; however, the burden Of maintaining the standards is on the organization rather than the government. The inspector does not look for any specific numerical values but evalu- ates the overall picture, basing 85-90 percent of the inspec- tion on sight, smell, and taste. The inspector does not monitor patty product weights, Since no pre-Operation agree— ment has been established to check net patty weights. 3.62 Salmonellae Testing Due to limitations Of available resources, the com— missary lab staff only does TPCS on the products produced in the commissary. During this study, Salmonella testing was undertaken at a state Department of Agriculture labora- tory. On four different ground beef patty production dates, five field samples of one pound each were Obtained from the commissary. The field samples were placed in Zipeloc plastic bags, packed in an ice-filled Thermos cooler, and delivered tO the state Department Of Agriculture laboratory. The state laboratory analyzed the samples for the presence Of Salmonella utilizing the procedure in the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA) Bacteriological Analytical Manual (1976), with the modifications noted in Appendix E. The state lab staff also evaluated each Of the raw field samples based on the sensory factors Of Odor, appearance, texture, and color. In addition, one or two patties from 65 each field sample was cooked and evaluated for acceptable odor and taste by the state laboratory staff. 3.63 Time-Temperature Relationship The time-temperature relationship is one of the crit- ical control points of paramount importance during the pro- duction of the ground beef patty sandwich in this commissary foodservice system. Eighteen of the 27 control points listed in Table 3.130 are associated with the time-temperature re- lationship. The time-temperature history was recorded on three separate randomly chosen dates for each of the following critical control points: store frozen, store refrigerated, pre-microwave, post-microwave, flake/slice, hOpper/grinder number one, hopper/grinder number two, Formax hopper, patty, refrigerated patties--just produced, refrigerated patties-- one-day old, transport, store-refrigerated walk-in, store- refrigerated drawer, cook,and serve. The internal product temperature of the fresh and frozen raw beef and that of the finished patties was obtained with a Wahl Digital Platinum- RTD Heat ProberTM Thermometer model number 350x. The ac- curacy of this instrument was 12°F (11°C). Product tem- peratures were recorded to the nearest : 0.2°F (0.1°C). An ice pick was inserted to the geometric center of the boxed fresh and frozen meat prior to inserting the digital thermometer's sensing probe. Hopper temperatures were obtained by inserting the probe in five different locations and averaging the readings. Individual patty 66 temperatures were determined by inserting the probe hori- zontally into the patty for maximum probe surface to meat contact. Average patty temperatures in the 25-pound cases were Obtained by determining the temperature of one patty chosen from the tOp, center, and bottom of the case and taking the average. Since commissary foodservice systems typically produce and serve their menu items in separate locations, the time- temperature relationship during transportation and distribu- tion is extremely important. The environmental temperature of the ground beef patties was recorded from the time the 25-pound cases were placed in the commissary's refrigeration unit through delivery of the product to the restaurant's walk-in refrigerator. A Pacific Transducer Corporation Model Number 615 Portable Dry Stylus Recording Thermometer with an accuracy Of 12°F (11°C) was placed in the corner of a case of recently produced patties. Environmental storage temperatures in the commissary walk-in freezer and refrigerator were also determined. In addition, the restaurant walk-in cooler and refrigerated drawer ambient temperatures were measured. All of these storage area temperatures were determined with a Cooper refrigerator/freezer portable thermometer model number 25HP with an accuracy of 12°F (11°C). The thermometer was placed near the stored product and the temperature was read 30 minutes later. 67 Because the likelihood of microbiological prolifera- tion is influenced by both time and temperature, maximum holding times in each of these 16 critical control points were determined from commissary records and interviews with both commissary and restaurant personnel. The time periods varied from a maximum of two months during freezer storage holding of the raw beef to one minute during the flake/ slice operation. Using the temperature danger zone estab- lished by the U.S. Public Health Service, the time- temperature history of this product can be utilized to estimate the likelihood of microbiological proliferation. 3.7 Nutritional Analysis of Ground Beef Patties The nutritional quality of any food is a function of its chemical composition as related to the specific nutrient needs of the individual. Unfortunately, the exact composi- tion of foods and nutrient requirements of individuals are usually incompletely known (Hansen et a1., 1979). Moreover, the nutrient content of a food product is dependent to some extent on such factors as the production, processing, and storage conditions prior to consumption. The precise description of the nutrient content of a food is also limited by the availability of the nutrient under consideration and the synergistic effect of various food combinations. In addition, nutrient losses can be experienced in meat products, particularly during thawing, cooking, and holding (Erdman, 1979). The nutrient content of specific food items can be determined through complex 68 chemical analyses (Appledorf, 1974). Beyond that, the nutrient profile of a menu item can be estimated through the use of tables of food composition (Guthrie, 1979). In order to compare the nutrient profile of the ground beef patties in this study to an individual's nutritional needs, several assumptions were made regarding target market age group, average weight and height of the target market group, and average energy need of this group. 3.71 Recommended Daily Dietary Allowances The Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Sciences - National Research Council Recommended Daily Dietary Allowances (RDA), revised in 1980, were reviewed to determine the nutrient values for both males and females. For the purposes of nutrition analysis of the ground beef patties, the age group of 23 to 50 years was selected. The corresponding portion of the RDA for this age group is presented in Table 3.710. These values assume an average weight of 154 pounds (70 kilograms) and height of 70 inches (178 centimeters) for the male, and an average weight of 120 pounds (55 kilograms) and height of 64 inches (163 centimeters) for the female. Based on the RDA, the average daily energy need was assumed to be 2,700 kcals. for the male and 2,000 kcals for the female. 3.72 Food Composition Tables Data from food composition tables provide the least expensive, yet most widely used, tool for estimating the nutrient intake of an individual (Guthrie, 1979). These 69 TABLE 3.710 RECOMMENDED DAILY DIETARY ALLOWANCES FOR SELECTED NUTRIENTS FOR MALES AND FEMALES IN THE 23 TO 50 AGE GROUP RECOMMENDED DAILY DIETARY ALLOWANCES NUTRIENT MALE FEMALE Protein (9) 56 44 Vitamin A (ug RE)1 1000 800 Vitamin D (ug)2 5 5 Vitamin E (mg aTE)3 10 8 Ascorbic Acid (mg) 60 60 Thiamin (mg) 1.4 1.0 Riboflavin (mg) 1.6 1.2 Niacin (mg NE)4 18 13 Vitamin B6 (mg) 2.2 2.0 Folacin (pg) . 400 - 400 Vitamin B12 (ug) 3.0 3.0 . Calcium (mg) 800 800 Phosphorus (mg) 800 800 Magnesium (mg) 350 300 Iron (mg) 10 18 Zinc (mg) 15 15 Iodine (ug) 150 150 l Retinol equivalents. 1 RE = 1 ug retinol or 6 ug B carotene or 3.33 IU. 2A3 cholecalciferol. 10 ug cholecalciferol = 400 10 Vita— min D. 30 tocopherol equivalents. 1 mg d-a-tocopherol = 1 a TB. 4Niacin equivalents. 1 NE = 1 mg niacin or 60 mg dietary tryptophan. 70 data are usually based on information extracted from one or both of the following Sources: the U.S. Department of Agri- culture Handbook, NO. 456, Nutritive Value of American Foods (1975); or the U.S. Department of Agriculture Home and Gar- den Bulletin No. 72 (1977). The data for Handbook NO. 456 originally was printed in the U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook NO. 8, Composition of Foods--Raw, Processed, and Prepared, which was initially published in 1950. This pub- lication lists food values in terms of 100 grams edible portion (EP) and one pound as purchased (AP). Bulletin No. 72, on the other hand, expresses food values in terms of average servings or common household units. The data for this study were taken from Handbook No. 456 because this facilitated the conversion to the values needed in this analysis. The values used were based on regular raw and cooked ground beef with an average fat con- tent of 21 percent. These values were adjusted to the grand mean value, E; obtained for the patty weights in the process capability analysis. Since each ground beef sandwich con- tains two patties, the grand mean value of 44.3 grams was multiplied by two to obtain the total precooked weight of the patties, or 88.6 grams. The values of the various nu- trients present in the ground beef patties were Obtained by taking a ratio of the cooked to raw values from Handbook No. 456. These values are presented in Table 3.720. Since the patties are cooked on a griddle in the restaurant, the values represented in Handbook No. 456 are 71 TABLE 3.720 COMPOSITION OF RAW AND COOKED GROUND BEEF PATTIES WITH 21 PERCENT FAT BASED ON VALUES IN USDA HANDBOOK NO. 456 PRODUCT RAW COOKED GROUND GROUND ITEM BEEF BEEF ‘ . LOSS, % Weight (g) 88.6 63.6 28 Moisture (%/g) (60.2/53) (54.2/35) 35 Food energy (kcal) 273 210 23 Protein (9) 15.8 15.4 3 Fat (9) 18.8 13.0 31 Carbohydrate (g) 0 0 0 Calcium (mg) 8.8 7.0 21 Phosphorus (mg) 138.1 122.9 11 Iron (mg) 2.4 2.0 17 Sodium (mg) 55.4 37.7 30 Potassium (mg) 253.3 172.2 30 Vitamin A (pg RE) 103.9 77.9 25 Thiamin (mg) 0.10 0.08 20 Riboflavin (mg) 0.10 0.09 10 Niacin (mg NB) 3.8 3.4 11 Ascorbic acid (mg) 0 0 0 72 applicable. NO attempt was made to estimate the nutrient contents of the cheese, special sauce, lettuce, and french fries added to the patties before service. In Spite of the recognized limitations, the food composition tables permit estimates of the nutritive content of a food item that approximate those values determined by direct chemical analyses. The advantages of using these tables include lower costs in time, equipment, and money. 3.73 Index of Nutritional Quality The Index of Nutritional Quality (INQ) is one expres— sion of the nutrient density of a food. That is, the INQ expresses the relationship between the extent to which a food meets the requirement for a specific nutrient compared to the extent to which it meets an individual's needs for energy (Guthrie, 1979). Mathematically, the INQ is cal- culated as follows: Percent U.S. RDA for a nutrient Percent energy requirement INQ = If a food has an INQ of one or more for four nutrients or an INQ of two or more for two nutrients, that food makes a so-called significant contribution to the individual's nutrient intake and it may be identified as nutritious. A food is considered a so-called source of a nutrient if it has an INQ of one, and one serving of that food provides at least 2 percent of the U.S. RDA for the nutrient. The food must have an INQ of 1.5 and provide 10 percent Of the U.S. RDA in each serving to be categorized as a good or excellent 73 source. The percent RDA and the INQ were calculated for the following eight nutrients present in the ground beef patties: protein, calcium, phosphorus, iron, vitamin A, thiamin, riboflavin, and niacin. The results of these cal- culations are presented in Table 3.730. Based on these values, the ground beef patties were classified as nutri- tious, and whether or not they were merely a source or a good or excellent source of each of the individual nutrients. 3.8 Sensory Analysis of Ground Beef Patties Sensory evaluation can be considered a service func- tion regardless of where or how it is positioned in an or- ganization. Hirsh (1971) observed that, ideally, this ser- vice function should be an integral part of the decision- making continuum. Sensory evaluation may be structured as strictly a part of research and development. Alternatively, sensory evaluations of the firm's products can provide in- formation to bridge the gap between the research and develop- ment department and the promotional aspects of marketing. In addition, sensory evaluation can be used as a branch of marketing research to check advertising, market positioning, and packaging rather than the physical and quality aspects of the product itself. 3.81 Sensory Evaluation at the Commissary The commissary receiving department performs no sen- sory evaluation of the delivered fresh or frozen beef plates, or boneless beef. Only the number of boxes delivered are verified and compared to the invoice. The lab staff 74 TABLE 3.730 THE PERCENT RDA AND THE INDEX OF NUTRITIONAL QUALITY FOR EIGHT SELECTED NUTRIENTS IN GROUND BEEF PATTIES PERCENT RDA INDEX OF NUTRITIONAL QUALITY NUTRIENT MALE FEMALE MALE FEMALE Protein 27.5 35.0 3.5 3.3 Calcium 0.9 0.9 0.1 0.1 Phosphorus 15.4 15.4 2.0 1.7 Iron 20.0 11.1 2.6 1.1 Vitamin A 7.8 9.7 0.7 0.8 Thiamin 5.7 8.0 0.7 0.7 Riboflavin 5.6 7.5 2.4 2.5 Niacin 18.9 26.2 1.0 0.7 75 performs odor, color, and appearance checks, in addition to TPC and percent fat tests, on "randomly" chosen samples of frozen beef delivered to the commissary. When the fresh and frozen beef is processed by the meat room personnel, the product is evaluated by the meat room supervisor based on appearance, odor, and texture. The lab staff informally evaluates the finished ground beef patties, based on sensory criteria of odor and appearance, when analyzing the product for percent fat. The USDA in- spector at the commissary primarily performs a sensory in- spection (sight, smell, and touch) of the patties. This individual conducts no analytical tests, but relies on the results of the commissary lab analyses. The USDA inspector relies on his experience to indicate whether or not the product is acceptable. 3.82 Taste Panels Periodically, an "executive" taste panel consisting of the commissary owners, the vice-president for commissary operations, the commissary manager, and the individual in charge of all retail operations evaluates selected food products. The form used for this evaluation is included in Appendix A. The taste panel utilizes preference tests to evaluate food products based on individual likes or dis- likes. Menu items are added or deleted based on the pref- erences of the "executive" taste panel. The danger in only using an "executive" taste panel lies in the fact that panel members may not accurately 76 reflect the target market's preferences. The goal of sensory evaluation Should be to determine whether the product offered is in a condition that is satisfactory to the consumer (Wren, 1977). This consideration should per— vade all aspects of quality assurance, especially the area of sensory analysis. In addition to evaluating the field samples for the presence of Salmonella, the state Department of Agriculture laboratory also checked sensory aspects of the raw and cooked patties. Raw samples were evaluated based on appear- ance, color, odor, and texture. The cooked samples were checked for odor and taste. 3.83 SensorygEvaluation in the Restaurant When ground beef patties are delivered to the restau- rant, a case or bag count is verified against the invoice. The product's temperature, weight, sensory condition or the sensory condition of the delivery truck are not checked. A visual check of the cooked and assembled ground beef patty sandwich is normally performed before the menu item is served to the customer. Periodically, a field inspector from the commissary inspects the individual restaurants using a Standards of Performance report which was develOped by the commissary management. This once-a-month inspection involves an evalu- ation of the cooked ground beef sandwich based on Sight only. In addition, the restaurant's dining room and staff are periodically evaluated using a Service Instructor's Report. 77 This latter report form does not cover a sensory evaluation of the ground beef sandwich. CHAPTER 4 RESULTS Hazard analysis is a series of activities focused on an in-depth study of the production process for a food product. Due to the preventive purpose of hazard analysis, the investigator examines the system for both the actual presence of, and the possibility for, unacceptable time- temperature combinations, potentially hazardous food products, pathogenic microorganisms, chemical or physical risks, unacceptable employee practices and hazardous envi- ronmental conditions. After the actual and potential haz- ards are explored, management is charged with the respon- sibility of developing and maintaining policies, procedures, standards and routines designed to minimize these risks. 4.1 Process Flow Diagram The thrust of a process flow diagram is to provide a vehicle for visualizing the sequence of producing a product and identifying associated hazards. Prior to its construc- tion, the process must be observed during actual operation to determine the flow steps and associated hazards. The second step is an information-gathering phase, consisting of questions and answers. The best sources for this infor- mation are management and the employees directly involved 78 79 with producing the product. Once the process flow diagram is constructed, it only needs to be modified to accommodate changes in the process, ingredients, or equipment. The commissary serving as the basis of this research was visited on five occasions to observe and record the pro- cess flow of the ground beef patty under investigation. In addition, a company-owned restaurant located approximately 100 miles from the commissary was studied on two separate dates to determine the product flow in the restaurant. Several managers, supervisors and employees were interviewed to obtain information about the food product under investi- gation. The process flow diagram was constructed on the basis of these discussions and observations. The complete process flow diagram for the production of the ground beef patty sandwich in this commissary food- service system is presented in Figure 4.100. All operations or process steps performed on the principal ingredient are shown as boxes connected by arrows which indicate the product flow. Items appearing to the left of the operations signify the addition of ingredients or supplies. Items appearing to the right of the operations represent either waste or the tests and inspections presently performed on the product at that step. Operations beginning with purchase through assemble/ load take place in the commissary. The products are then transported to the restaurant aboard company-owned trucks. After transport, the remaining operations in the process 80 PURCHASE Eusonv TESTS — - — —. PERCENT PAT Pc ST°R R FRIR TE ---. WASTE I need): "34— — ——— —. — — — _ -H\__.. WASTE II | PLAKE/SLIcE I am -- -->SEIISOIIY TESTS GRIND OOAIISE I - - -* SENSORY TESTS I-EEHHJEEE-l WEIOIIT PATTY _, _. .. _____ _ pATTY -‘ PERCENT FAT PAPEP Pc PLASTIc LINE PLASTIC CASE "‘ ‘ " “35 PALLET —————— -> ' TRANSPORT FIGURE 4.100 COMPLETE PROCESS FLOW DIAGRAM FOR GROUND BEEF PATTY SANDWICH PRODUC’ TION IN A COMMISSARY FOODSERVICE SYSTEM 81 STORE REFRIGERATED WALK-IN ASE(RECYCLE) +' “’{EINEP (WASTE) STORE REFRIGERATED DRAWER 1 MOVE PAP ' -‘>WASTE SPICES " —’ "*SENSORY TESTS LETTUCE BUN SAUCE - T «sensonv CHEESE TESTS FRENCH- - m FRIES PICK-UP -*SENSORY 1 TESTS I SERVE I FIGURE 4 . 100 (.CONT'D.) 82 flow diagram occur in the restaurant. The critical control points associated with the process flow diagram were identi- fied in Table 3.130. 4.2 Commissary Process Flow Operations The commissary produces approximately 17 tons per week of the ground beef patties investigated in this research. This amount represents over 55 percent of the total annual ground beef production by the commissary. Annually, this commissary foodservice system produces and sells over 1,500 tons of ground beef in three different forms. 4.21 Purchase The fresh and frozen boneless beef and beef plates are purchased from as many as eight domestic and foreign suppliers. Suppliers quote prices to the commissary pur- chasing agent based On verbal specifications of what is desired. No written standard purchase specifications are used for these raw materials. The beef plates are United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) choice grade and are added to the patties for flavor. The boneless beef is USDA utility grade. Frozen beef is purchased less frequently than fresh beef. 4.22 Receive The number of packages of beef products delivered to the commissary are counted and the figure is compared to that stated on the supplier's invoice. Prior to delivery by common carrier or the supplier's truck, a purchase order is sent to the receiving department indicating the item to be 83 delivered, when, and the amount. The fresh meat is delivered in a 2,000-pound container, whereas the frozen beef is received in 60-pound boxes. Neither the receiving department nor the commissary lab ever spot-checks the weights of the meat being delivered. Meat delivered to the commissary has been inspected previously by the USDA and graded and certified as being wholesome. The meat from Australia has also been inspected by the Australian government. No inspections of the delivery trucks are performed by commissary personnel. Periodically, the lab staff evaluates six to ten boxes of frozen meat that are "randomly" (i.e., subjectively, app statistically) chosen. The evaluation covers TPC, percent fat, and physi- cal defects (e.g., odor, color and dehydration). Depending on availability and workload of lab personnel, similar analyses of fresh meat may be performed. When time con- straints surface, however, this receiving check is classi- fied as a low priority item in relation to tests conducted on products produced in-house (e.g., ground beef patties). 4.23 Store Frozen, Store Refrigerated Depending on the product's state when delivered, the meat is stored either frozen or chilled. Each pallet of frozen beef has six levels with five boxes per level, for a total of 1,800 pounds. These pallets are stored in a walk-in freezer with representative temperatures presented in Table 4.230. The 2,000-pound containers of beef are stored in the walk-in refrigerator with representative 84 O.m m.hm I mm Nm NO Rosana OououomHumom usausmumom O.v O.vm I OM OM mm HoumHOmHwam OHImez usmusmummm N.v b.em Om cm I mm HoumummHumom whommHEEOU H.O >.OI O OI I NHI Hammonm hummmHEEOU onemH>mo mo¢mm>< OO\O\OH OO\ON\O OO\mm\O OO\O\O ammozmem onemooq m. .mmaemmmmzme BZ¢MD STORAGE STORAGE r!‘ - ! I I I . _ _| | ! I — ' : I ' I i i I I I I i I I I I ; I L. . _L: I : L__-_L__-Ji I- _..__._____._i KEY 1. RAYTHEON MICROWAVE . 7. FORMAx HOPPER 2. HYDRAUPLAKER a. PORMAx PATTY MACHINE a. CONVEYOR 9. WORK TABLE 4. HOPPER III 10. REFRIGERATED STORAGE 5. HOPPER «2 ---RAW PRODUCT PLOW o. RAISED PLATFORM -----GRouND BEEF PATTY FLOW FIGURE 4.240 PLAN VIEW OF COMMISSARY MEAT ROOM ILLUSTRATING RAW PRODUCT AND GROUND BEEF PATTY FLOW (NOT DRAWN TO SCALE) 87 4.26 Patty; Case, Load The Formax patty machine produces four round ground beef patties at a time, one from each of its four position (die) locations, at a rate of approximately 200 patties every minute. The machine automatically delivers waxed patty paper to separate each patty, and stacks the patties in stacks of 14 patties. Then the machine's conveyor belt advances and begins a new stack. The patties are stacked manually into plastic bags placed in plastic lugs holding approximately 25 pounds when filled. The plastic lugs are hand-loaded on pallets and stored in the commissary walk- in refrigeration unit. 4.27 Refrigerate Once processed, the beef is held at refrigerated temperatures. The patties that were processed most recently are stored on Shelves in the walk-in. Any patties remaining from a previous day's production run are stored on pallets on the floor of the walk-in. This system of stock rotation helps guarantee a first-in, first-out (FIFO) inventory system. 4.28 Assemble/Load .When the restaurant places an order with the commis— sary for ground beef patties, an individual from the load- ing crew fills the order based upon a computerized print- out. The items ordered for each restaurant are placed in one or more mobile cages. Each cage is checked for product count prior to loading. 88 4.29 Transport The ground beef patties are transported to the res- taurant in refrigerated, company-owned trucks. No monitor- ing of the truck's storage environment is done on a regular basis. Company trucks deliver commissary products to the restaurants two to four times per week, depending on the geographical location of the restaurant. 4.3 Restaurant Process Flow Operations The company-owned restaurant investigated in this study is located approximately 100 miles from the commissary. This l30-seat restaurant does an average total weekly food and beverage volume of $10,000. With average weekly sales of $10,000, the restaurant orders approximately Six 25- pound cases of ground beef patties per week, an amount that represents over 50 percent of the total weight of all ground beef items ordered in a typical week by this restaurant. Orders for food, beverages, and non-food supplies are placed with the commissary three times per week. The inven— tory code of each item, together with the amount to be delivered, is entered into the commissary's computer via a touch-tone telephone. The order is delivered two days after it is placed. 4.31 Receive All commissary products are delivered to the restau- rant by a company-owned truck. The restaurant manager, assistant manager, or a trained employee receives all deliveries and verifies the case count against the amount 89 charged on the invoice. No checks of the delivery truck, product weights, or temperatures are made, nor are sensory evaluations of the delivered products performed. 4.32 Store Refrigerated Walk-in After receipt, the ground beef patties are stored in a refrigerated walk-in cooler with representative temper- atures reported in Table 4.230. The FIFO inventory system is maintained by placing the older items on top or to the front of the cooler shelf. However, there is no dating or tagging of ground beef patties. 4.33 Decase, Store Refrigerated Drawer Each morning, the line cook stocks the ground beef patties in a refrigerated drawer located under the bank of cooking equipment. Based on par inventory figures, the number of patties forecasted to be sold that day are de- cased and placed in the refrigerated drawer. This fore- casted number is determined by management after considering both historical trends and other relevant information. The temperatures of the refrigerated drawer are listed in Table 4.230. 4.34 Remove Paper, Cook After the customer's order is taken by the waitress, it is verbally "called in" to the cook via a public address system. The waitress also writes up the order and places it on a revolving spindle so the cook can refer to the order. Since all ground beef items are prepared to order, the cook removes the paper from two patties and places 90 these on the grill for each double-deck ground beef sand- wich ordered. Immediately, the cook places a double decker bun in the bun toaster. The grill's temperature is set at 325°F (163°C) as specified in the organization's standard recipe for pre- paring this menu item. Patties are turned when juice appears on the top. The cook is instructed to turn each patty only once and not mash the patties or drain the juice. Each patty is seasoned with a special blend of spices before being removed from the grill. 4.35 Assemble, Plate After the bun is toasted, lettuce, one slice of cheese, and a Special sauce are placed on the bun. The cooked pat- ties are added and the double-deck sandwich is assembled. The cook has been instructed to build the sandwich straight and wrap it carefully if a take-out order is being assembled. If the customer ordered a combination plate, french fries are also cooked and placed on the same plate as the double- deck sandwich. 4.36 Pick-up, Serve Once plated, the food is placed on the pick-up shelf. The waitress call button is pushed by the cook to indicate that the order is ready to be served. The waitress picks up the order and serves it to the customer along with any additional food items ordered. The manager of this restaurant emphasized that he or his assistant makes an effort to visually check each menu 91 item before it is served. Since it is impossible for this inspection to occur on an on-going basis during busy periods, it is necessary to rely on the judgment of employ- ees. The only way for this system of inspection to be effec- tive is to train employees to be cognizant of the criteria used for sensory evaluations of food products. 4.4 The Pareto Analysis and Results The Pareto analysis is a rational tool capable of separating the commissary meat room swab sites into "vital few" and "trivial many" categories. This tool permits the quality assurance staff to maximize their efforts in mon- itoring equipment sanitation. The Total Plate Counts (TPCS) and meat contact scores (Table 3.240) were used to develop a scheme to focus the attention of the sanitation crew on the "vital few" locations in the meat room. The method of priority rankings automatically rearranged the priorities to focus attention on the remaining sensitive swab sites. This modified scheme improved the overall sanitation effort. 4.41 Calculation of Priority Rankings The priority ranking procedure was instituted for a six-week period (February 17,1981 to March 31, 1981). During this study, the number of swab tests per week was increased from eight to a total of twelve, six swabs each on Tuesdays and Thursdays. The lab staff did not actually countthe number of colonies on each of the incubated plates, but simply placed each result into one of three categories: 3 (<1 to 1000 colonies), 2 (1001 to st OOHuuso xmoum mooom Honumm as» umm as» OOHSS HO>Ocm ousno momma HomcsHm xmsuom uHOO HO>O>OOO HOEHOO MOOSE HOEHOO moumHm xmsuom Romeo: HOEHOO uconnu Ne HOOOHHU HO>OO Ne Hommom OOOHQ HOOOHHU Homso HOOOHHO umounu He HOOCHHU Ht Hmmmom mou Ht HO>O>OOO uHOn Ne HO>O>OOU oeHm Ha HO>O>OOU uHOn H: HO>O>OOU OOOHQ HOHOHOSOHO>2 OHnOu Homemsmuexm O~\m O~\m mem RH\H ~H\m OH\H mxm mxm Omxm O~\m mH\~ OH\H m mmoom BUCBZOU mmOUm UQB Edmz maHm m<3m DOHmmm Mmm3 XHm d mom ZOOM 84m: MmdmmHZZOU BEE 2H mBmOhhm ZOHB¢BHZ¢W HEB UZHmOBHZOZ mom QmOUQm wBHMOHmm OWENHQZOU NHv.v wands 97 m.mm MHMOMMMMMMMMVQ‘NQOMVMMMOVI OMVV'MOLOMQ'MQ'MKOV' I!) V MNMKDMMMMMM Om \O (D m (n MHMOMMMMMMMMVQ‘NQOMVMQ‘MQV O') [\ Hm m.om m.mh m.v> m.mh m.vh m.mO MHNONNMMMMMMVVNQOMQ‘MV‘MKDV oq'q'wIwIGIGIQINISIPIOIOI .‘G‘Gtfitfl\0(fi'¢tfi‘¢(W‘O‘¢ oq'q'cIGIGIGIO-«IOIw1u><~ o'OINInInLOIOININ1wcnIo'O 0'¢(V€W¢fl\OtWch OOHOUOO xmmum mooom HOHHOm as» umm gnu OOHOS HO>Ocm ousso momma HOOOOHQ Hmsuom OHOQ HO>O>OOO xmeuom Roman xmsuom mouOHm HOEHOO Hommoc HOEHom HOOHOO Nt HOOOHHO HO>OO Ne Momma: OOOHQ HOOCHHO Roman HOOCHHO amoucp Ht ROOOHHO H¢ Hommom mou He HO>O>OOU uHon N* HO>O>COU OOHO Ha HO>O>OOU OHOO H¢ HO>O>OOU OOOHQ HOHOHOSOHCNT OHnmu HOHOHOSOHO>$ Hm\m O~\m vm\m mH\m onm mem OH\m m\m m\m O~\~ Om\~ Ome UZHMde NBHmOHmm mBHm m¢3m AUOOGHHCOOV NHv.v mHm<8 98 Hoezev H .Hoezev 0» HOOHO N .AOOOH Ou va m nouoom OOBH m H I I I I I I H I I I I I- I I I m I I I m m m H I I I m I I I m m m m H H I I I I .l I I I. I m I I I I I I m m I m I I I I I m I I I m I I I I m m H H m I I m m H H H I I m H H H m m H H H H I m H H I I I m H I I I m H H I I I I m I I I I N m I. I I I m m H m H m H H H H H H H H H I m I I I m m I I I m m HHHMHHMHHMHNNHMHMHHHNHMN mo>ch OOHOOOO xmoum mooom Houumm any umm nap OOHEZ HO>Ocm Ousno Hommm HomcsHm xosuom OHOQ HO>O>OOO xmsuom Homsm Hmfiuom moumHm xmsuom Romeo: HNEHOO umoucu Ne HOOOHHO HO>OO Ne Hommom OOOHO HOOOHHU Roman HOOOHHO umousu Ha HOOOHHO Ht Hommom moo Ht Ho>o>coo OHOQ Nt HO>O>OOU OOHm Ht HO>O>OOU uHOn He HO>O>OOU OOOHO HOMOHOOOHONE OHnmu HOHOHOOOHONE ON\m vN\m mH\m bH\m NH\m OH\m m\m m\m Om\~ O~\m Ome Rme U) mmOUm 0&8 MBHm m€3m 3mm0 ZOHBflBHde fiddmmHZZOU flue ZmomZH OE ammo mmmoom 0&8 mom Bummm BfifiHfl QNBQHQZOU mav.v mqméfi 99 was read from the Formax patty machine pressure indicator dial. The GENSTAT V program adjusted these data to an average psi to facilitate the analysis of the other inde- pendent effects. The model used for the analysis of co- variance was: weight = u + batch + sample within batch + position + replicate + position by replicate + 3 x psi + error The results of the analysis of variance, adjusted for the covariate psi, are presented in Table 4.510. The covariate across batches indicated no significant difference (a = .05) for batch effects. This suggests that psi cannot explain differences between batches. Having adjusted for psi, batch differences existed as evidenced by the F-statistic of 141.0. These differences may be explained by different production dates, different product or equipment temperatures, different batch formulations of fat-to-lean or frozen-to-thawed meat, or any other possible differences. Any corollary effects, or undefined or unmeasured effects, synonymous with batch could be possible sources of batch differences. The F-statistic for position is significant (a = .05). Through observation, it was noted that position number two varied more than the other three positions. The precise reason that position number two was the most variable cannot be explained on the basis of this analysis. Most of the de- fined differences were in position. The position by 100 TABLE 4.510 ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE OF PATTY WEIGHTS PRODUCED IN A COMMIS- SARY FOODSERVICE SYSTEM (n=760) SUM OF MEAN SOURCE df SQUARES SQUARE F Covariates across batches 1 15.0286 15.0286 1.1 Batch 11 151.1167 13.7379 141.0 Sample/Batch 6 5.1784 0.8631 8.9 Position 3 0.8548 0.2849 2.9 Replicate 9 1.1341 0.1260 1.3 Position by Replicate 27 1.5644 0.0579 0.6 Covariates within batches 1 0.0489 0.0489 0.5 Residual 701 68.3081 0.0974 Grand Total 759 243.2340 101 replicate interaction is not significant (0 = .05). This says that the position ranking remained constant among replicates or the replicate ranks were identical for posi- tion. Recall that the ten replicates are made within twelve seconds. 4.52 Bonferroni t-Test A Bonferroni t-test is utilized when it is not pos- sible to formulate contrasts prior to the experiment due to insufficient information (Gill, 1978). Two schools of thought exist regarding the application of Bonferroni t- tests. One group holds that if the F-statistic is not sig- nificant, there is no reason to look for individual con- trasts. The other group believes that whenever there are a relatively large number of degrees of freedom, differences could exist regardless of the size of the F-statistic. The Bonferroni t-test does not presume a prior significant re- sult for the overall test of mean differences because the total probability of a Type I error (a) is split among the set of designed comparisons (Gill, 1978). The Bonferroni t-test statistics were calculated utilizing the procedure outlined by Gill (1978). The mean values for both positions and replicates were taken from Table 4.520. In the case of positions, the calculation was based on the largest difference (i.e., positions 3 and 4). For replicates, the largest difference was between repli— cates 1 and 10. Even though the F-statistic is significant for 102 TABLE 4.520 AVERAGE WEIGHTS (IN GRAMS) OF GROUND BEEF PATTIES PRODUCED IN A COMMISSARY FOODSERVICE SYSTEM (n=760) POSITION 0R AVERAGE WEIGHT. GRAMS REPLICATE -— NUMBER POSITION REPLICATE (n=190) '(n=76) 1 44.328 44.425 2 44.354 44.379 3 44.308 44.350 4 44.398 44.377 5 44.363 6 44.326 7 44.331 8 44.300 9 44.328 10 44.290 103 positions (a = .05), the Bonferroni t-test of all possible positions failed to find where the difference existed. For replicates, there was no significant difference although replicate number 1 was different than replicate number 10. No trends could be identified for replicates, using the Bonferroni t-test. The F-statistic showed that positions were significant (c = .05) and nothing more. Apparently, there was unequal pressure exerted by the Formax patty machine in the four positions or possibly the mechanism delivering the meat did it differently for the different positions. Since there was no method for testing the differences except all possible differences, it was not possible to statistically point to where the differences existed. There may not be a large enough difference between 125 psi and 150 psi to signifi- cantly influence the patty weights with the pressure setting. A visual examination of the Formax patty machine's plate con- taining the four position locations revealed no noticeable differences. This intraoccular test leads one to conclude that there is no reason to expect differences between the positions. One of the problems with multiple comparisons is that one gives up power (1 -B) to maintain integrity (a). That being true, one needs an‘a priori feeling as to where one might be searching for the differences. Without these pre- conceived assumptions, the only alternative is to perform anlg posteriori test on all possible contrasts. 104 4.6 Process Capability Analysis A process capability analysis was performed on the 760 patty weights. The thrust of a process capability analysis is to provide management with information with which to decide whether it is economically feasible to reduce the variability and increase conformance to the established tolerances. The commissary specification and tolerance for patty weight is 45.4 grams 1 1 gram. The study determined where the process was centered and whether the process was inherently capable of meeting the specified tolerance. 4.61 Process Capability Calculations The process capability data were collected and tabu- lated into 4 (3) groups with 190 (3) subgroups for a total of 760 net patty weights. The mean, §, and the range, R, of each 4-unit subgroup was computed and recorded. These data are presented in Appendix F. The average range, R, was calculated by taking the sum of the 190 ranges and dividing by 190. The initial R equaled 0.61 grams. The upper and lower 3-sigma limits of the range were computed using R and the apprOpriate D3 and D4 factors and formulas from Table 4.610. The observed ranges were then examined and any outside of the 3-sigma limits were discarded. The average range and new limits were then recalcu- lated and the ranges reexamined to determine which were outside of the new limits. This process was repeated 105 TABLE 4.610 FACTORS FOR CHECKING FOR THE PRESENCE OF CONTROL, GIVEN R (3- -SIGMA LIMITS)l NUMBER OF FACTOR UNITS, n (12 D3 D4 3 1.693 0 2.58 4 2.059 0 2.28 5 2.326 0 2 11 6 2.534 0 2.00 8 2.847 0.14 1.86 10 3.078 0.22 1.78 Formulas: URL = D4 x R LRL = D3 x E = R Sest dz 1 ASTM (1951). 106 until all of the remaining ranges fell within the limits last calculated. In total, eleven ranges were eliminated: two from August 26 (batch 1), six from September 4 (batch l), and three from September 29 (batch 1). The final R was 0.552 grams, while the final URL and LRL were 1.26 grams and 0 grams, respectively. The standard deviation was then estimated from the final R and appropriate d2 factor and formula from Table 4.610. The estimated stand- ard deviation, Sest’ was calculated to be 0.268 grams. The observed average value of the patty weights R, was then calculated from the sum of the individual means. This grand average was determined to be 44.32 grams. Next, the frequency and cumulative frequency distributions were constructed. The xi's were sorted and placed into suitable, equal-sized intervals. The number of intervals, j, was cal- culated using Sturgis's rule as follows: j = l + 3.3 logN The number of intervals, j, equaled 10.504. The intervals covered a span of the natural limits of the process, six standard deviations, or 1.608 grams. The interval size was rounded to 0.15 grams to give it the same precision as the original data. Next, the interval boundaries were established. To find the starting point, one-half of the interval size, 0.15 grams, was subtracted from the grand mean, 44.32 grams. To find the boundaries of the smaller values of xi, the value 107 of the interval size was subtracted, successively, from the starting point, 44.245 grams. To find the boundaries of ., the value of the interval size was the larger values of X1 added, successively, to the starting point. A sufficient number of intervals was calculated to cover all values of xi. 4.62 Frequency Histogram and Cumulative Percentage Plot Table 4.620 presents the percentage and cumulative per- centage of xi's in each interval. The frequency (percentage) histogram and the cumulative percentage (normal probability) plot were constructed and analyzed. Figure 4.620 presents the frequency histogram, while the cumulative percentage plot is displayed in Figure 4.621. The R chart of net patty weights is presented in Figure 4.622. This chart illustrates both upper and lower range limits for the patty weights. 4.7 Analysis of Patty Fat Content The commissary's stated objective is to produce a patty with a composition of 22 percent fat and 78 percent lean. Because fat is less dense than muscle tissue, the effect of varying the fat content in the patty may influence patty weight. In addition, a higher fat content may affect the flavor of the cooked patty. Beyond that, economic factors must be considered because muscle tissue is usually more expensive than fat. 4.71 Percent Fat in the Pretest vs. Percent Pat in the Patty The pretest fat content was determined using a varia- tion of the Babcock procedure after the initial batch of fresh and frozen boneless beef and beef plates was ground. 108 TABLE 4.620 NUMBER, PERCENTAGE, AND CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE OF xi's IN EACH INTER- VAL FOR THE PROCESS CAPABILITY STUDY OF GROUND BEEF PATTY WEIGHTS (n=760) CUMULATIVE INTERVALS PERCENTAGE NO. OF ITEMS PERCENTAGE IN IN THE FROM TO IN INTERVAL THE INTERVAL INTERVAL 41.845 41.995 1 0.13 0.13 41.995 42.145 - - 0.13 42.145 42.295 - - 0.13 42.295 42.445 - - 0.13 42.445 42.595 - - 0.13 42.595 42.745 3 0.40 0.53 42.745 42.895 2 0.26 0.79 42.895 43.045 10 1.32 2.11 43.045 43.195 12 1.58 3.69 43.195 43.345 16 2.11 5.80 43.345 43.495 15 1.97 7.77 43.495 43.645 22 2.90 10.67 43.645 43.795 39 5.13 15.80 43.795 43.945 47 6.18 21.98 43.945 44.095 68 8.95 30.93 44.095 44.245 75 9.87 40.80 44.245 44.395 79 10.40 51.20 44.395 44.545 60 7.90 59.10 44.545 44.695 74 9.74 68.84 44.695 44.845 80 10.53 79.37 44.845 44.995 86 11.32 90.69 44.995 45.145 48 6.32 97.01 45.145 45.295 12 1.58 98.59 45.295 45.445 4 0.53 99.12 45.445 45.595 2 0.26 99.38 45.595 45.745 - - 99.38 45.745 45.895 1 0.13 99.51 45.895 46.045 3 0.40 99.91 46.045 46.195 - - 99.91 46.195 46.245 1 0.13 100.00 109 Hombucv mBmUHWS >99.me mmmm DZDomO .mO EOOBmHE wuszommm omw.v mmeHm v... 4.3 2.35 .592» >52 52 0.: «.3 0.9. v.9 s... cév ad. 0.: v.3 II [_LII ‘ d d [d d or .H<>¢m»z_ m1». z. 525: 8 as CUMULATIVE PERCENTAGE,% 110 90 r .. DIeMbutlon oi ’ Residue! Vim with “Known” 1’ 0 95 - Ceueee Removed M '- (> I w " (j '- ( ) .0 b (J .. , ’0 I 0b..” b (J Show Line I Apptoxlmeflon -z I (J 20 " o: om I Damnation ’0 ‘0 b :1 f I f 5 . ' O 0/ l l / l L L l 1 J 41 .5 42.0 42.5 43.0 43.5 44.0 44.5 45.0 45.5 40.0 NET PATTY WEIGHT, 9 FIGURE 4.621 CUMULATIVE FREQUENCY PLOT OF GROUND BEEF NET PATTY WEIGHTS (n=760) 111 mBmUHmz MBBHmv pumccmum CMHUOCMU pwmomoumm .AeemHv mmon an omoamssoomMN .COHHMUCUEEOOUH EHHOHCH cm mum mmmmsucwumm CH Do: mwusmHm .EHm UHanHmwo Us» ucmmmummu GEDHOU mHnu CH mmmmnusmumm CH mmusmHm H o o o m m oH mHHmcosHmm hOme N.oH m m m H Ode mummn ocsoum smuoumcoz I o HovH m N oH mHHOCOEHmm N.oH monm. m m m H one mamnoum “HOOD mmmHUCOm I o o m m 0H mHHUCOEHmm N.OH mOH m m m H one NOUHHHCO "Home mmmoumo z E H0 c mmmzouoHsIumoe .e .uur e mH.H m.em H.m~ o.mm m.m~ u>u3ouoHsqua .m mama e mm.m m.em ~.em m.em H.Om emumummHumuu muoum .N .605 m e~.o m.eI m.eI o.eI m.eI ruuoum muoum .H mzHe one¢H>mo mo¢mm>< om\m\oH om\m~\m om\e\m ezHoa zsszez omo Homezoo HaoHeHmo moH.mmae< wm€mmHZZOU 009 2H mmHBB<0 0000 020000 02¢ 0000 00000 02¢ 20Nomh 00 NmOBmHm mmDB.v m.mv v.5m e.mv m.¢v pawnsmummn OCH um U>Huua .vH mo.m m.~¢ m.¢m I v.m¢ Munoz NH mh.¢ m.vv N.¢m v.m¢ «.mv Munoz OH vm.m «.mw ~.mm o.om o.om mnson m mm.¢ w.mv o.H¢ v.m¢ o.om mason m mm.v ~.m¢ o.H¢ m.vv o.om Munoz v m>.m c.5v «.mv w.vv o.om mason m OH.v m.>¢ o.om m.mv o.om muson o uuommsmue .mH «o.H m.mm «.mm o.H¢ ~.mm OUOH\UHnEmmm< .NH one¢H>mo m om\m~\oH om\e\OH om\em\m ezHom Qm¢az¢am Homezoo mo .mmoeemmezme HaoHeHmo 9200008000 008 09 0020 0008000020BI02HB me.v 00008 128 TEM PERATURE, °C 2. 00H99<0 0000 020000 00 M0090H0 00090000209I0EH9 va.v 0000H0 2HI00¢3 00090 020 900002409 02HOD0 000232 5.2—On. 4009200 H<0.._._mo ~+ «I: 2+ e+ e+ 4+ «1. A or. 2. mp .NI H H H H H H H NI'M'IVM 38018 1 :2 .lNVUnVlSEH " BAIHHV - 3 .lHOdSNVUi NIDBS - $2 «Neonofio. / ’ h .3200 4 SI. .3523...» o .823 OVO'I/B'IBINESSV -' 9'- am an ac cm :1 I. 'SUDIVHad W31 129 and serve. These data are presented in Table 4.842 and Figure 4.842. Figure 4.843 summarizes the average temper- ature history of the ground beef patties produced in this commissary foodservice system. The numerical values for critical control point numbers 13 and 15 were obtained by averaging the recorded values for these points. The temperature danger zone, 45° to 140°F (7° to 60°C), and the identified growth range for Salmonella have been superimposed on Figure 4.843. Jay (1978) observed that the lowest temperatures at which growth has been reported are 41.5°F (5°C) for Salmonella heidelberg and 43.2°F (6°C) for Salmonella typhimurium. Temperatures of about 113°F (45°C) have been reported by several authors to be the upper limit for growth. In regard to the temperature danger zone, the average temperatures of two critical control points (transport and serve) fall within the zone. Transport times and tempera- tures are of paramount importance because of the amount of time that the product is likely to spend in the danger zone. The critical control point serve is less important because a relatively short amount of time is involved and many of the heat-labile pathogens will be destroyed during the cooking Operation. 4.9 Analysis of Nutrition Results The nutritional profile of the ground beef patties was estimated using values from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook No. 456. These values were compared 130 .meHs m mH.m ~.mHH e.mHH m.H~H o.o~H m>umm .mH .maHe m Hm.m m.HmH m.emH e.emH H.~mH xooo .mH >66 H om.H m.em o.em m.em e.mm 003606 omumummHummH UHOum .nH mama m mH.H H.mm m.Hm ~.em m.mm :HImez cmumnmmHHmUH wuoum .oH mzHe onamo m om\mm\m om\m~\m om\e\m ezHom Eoszmz omeozmem Homezoo mo .mmaeemmmzme HHOHeHmo 9200009000 009 2H 00H9900 0000 020000 00 M0090H0 00090000209I02H9 Nvm.v 00009 TEMPERATURE, ° F 131 180 80 ' Dates: _ 0 September 4 160 A September 25 ' -I 70 II September 29 140- a 60 120 - " 5° . .1 40 100 - D u 30 SOI- ” .. 20 60 - . I- I/ " 10 40- g: 0 0 E; q 0 4' I} of L 1 l l —A:13 16 17 18 19 CRITICAL CONTROL POINT NUMBER FIGURE 4.842 TIMEHTEMPERATURE HISTORY OF GROUND BEEF PATTIES IN THE RESTAURANT O. ‘SURIVIfld W31 TEMPERATURE, °F 132 170 130 110 70 10 CRITICAL CONTROL POINT NUMBER- FIGURE 4.843 AND GROUND BEEF PATTIES IN A MISSARY FOODSERVICE SYSTEM _ H 70 -— eTee—ee— — —— — -—-- -—-I( 60 - - 50 _ - ‘P- -- _- -- - -- _— __ _— TEMPERATURE ‘ 40 ’ DANGER ZONE _ GROWTH RANGE H 30 FOR P SALMONELLA " - 20 - i - 10 :1- .2: :1. :: :4. : _: FRESH MEAT J o h- I: b 2 - ‘é’ x 1.10 .< C) a: C) P I- o FROZEN MEAT ~ -20 l 1 1 l 1, I 1 1 t 1 1 1 l L l n _23 12 3 4 5 6 7 8 910111213141516171819 AVERAGE TEMPERATURE HISTORY OFOBEEF O. “SUDIVUSdINSI 133 to the 23 to 50 year old age group's Recommended Daily Dietary Allowances (RDA) to determine the Index of Nutri- tional Quality (INQ). The INQ is an expression of the nutrient density of a food, the ratio of the extent to which a food meets the requirement for a specific nutrient to the extent it meets the needs for energy for an indi- vidual. If a food has an INQ of one or more for four nutri- ents or an INQ of two or more for two nutrients, that food makes a significant contribution to the individual's nutri- ent intake and it may be identified as nutritious. Ground beef patties are, therefore, identified as nutritious for both males and females in the 23 to 50 age group based on the INQs presented in Table 3.730. The ground beef Patties are, therefore, considered a source of protein, phosphorus, iron, and riboflavin for both males and females. In addition, the patties are a source of niacin for males. The ground beef patties are good or excellent sources of protein and phosphorus for both males and females, but a good or excellent source of iron only for males. These results are summarized in Table 4.900. 134 TABLE 4.900 A CLASSIFICATION OF THE NUTRIENT CONTENT OF GROUND BEEF PATTIES BASED ON THE INDEX OF NUTRI- TIONAL QUALITY AND THE RECOM- MENDED DAILY DIETARY ALLOW- ANCES FOR THE 23 to 50 AGE GROUP A SOURCE A GOOD OR EXCELLENT SOURCE NUTRIENT MALES FEMALES MALES FEMALES Protein X X X X Phosphorus X X X X Iron X X X Riboflavin X X Niacin X CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Several quality assurance principles were applied to a commissary foodservice system that annually produces in excess of 15,000,000 ground beef patties. The Hazard Anal- ysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) concept was utilized as a template to point out the deficiencies that existed in this system. The Pareto principle and analysis was used to red flag the "vital few" sensitive equipment locations. The ground beef patties were analyzed to determine whether the percent fat in the pretest had a measurable effect on either the percent fat in the patty or the patty weight. The effect of the pressure setting on the patty forming machine was examined to ascertain whether it inf1u~ enced patty weight. A process capability study and anal- ysis was performed to determine whether the process for pro- ducing ground beef patties was in statistical control. Microbiological analyses were conducted on both the raw ingredients and the finished products. The nutrient profile of the ground beef patties was examined and methods for evaluating the sensory aspects of the product were evalé uated. The data generated provided an objective means for evaluating the effectiveness of the QA/QC system. 135 136 5.1 Quality Control/Quality Assurance The word quality can be defined in many ways; how- ever, the definition should be in line with what the firm's target market perceives it to be. One generalized defini- tion of quality is fitness for use, plus reliability, de- livered at a marketable price. Quality control (QC) has been defined as those operational techniques and activities that sustain a quality of a product or service that will satisfy given needs. Quality assurance (QA) has been de- scribed as all those planned or systematic actions neces- sary to provide adequate confidence that a product or ser- vice will satisfy given needs. 5.11 Scope of Quality Assurance/Quality Control Many, if not most, of the definitions and uses of the word quality explicitly or implicitly embrace the notion of better or good. This usage is what Juran and Gryna (1970) char- acterizes as marketplace quality. In a competetive economy, consumers have a choice as to what products they will buy based on a myriad of factors such as style, quantity, availability, size, perceived value, price, and quality. Marketing or related groups are responsible for determining the marketplace quality, based on information concerning the needs and wants of the target market. The character- istics of marketplace quality, obtained through marketing intelligence, are described by a set of specifications. The production department makes the product on the basis of the specifications provided to them. The task of 137 quality assurance/quality control is to provide information on the likelihood, on a given day, that the product quality is within specifications. Stated formally, QA/QC personnel make statements such as, "There is no persuasive evidence that the product is not other than specified (accepting the null hypothesis)," or "It is quite likely that the product is not within specifications." In cases where product quality does not conform to specifications, it is produc- tion's responsibility to take action based on established management guidelines. It is sometimes difficult to identify the special characteristics in companies that excel in quality versus those that have fallen behind. Certainly, the pacesetters are managed by people who insist on satisfying the target market needs, and will settle for nothing less. Good lines of communication between upper management and the QA/QC department are essential in meeting the long-term objec- tives of the organization. The QA/QC department needs to be a part of the total corporate team that provides the target market with quality, value, and service. Employees who are "quality minded" possess an atti- tude abOut quality that does not allow them to feel right about a product that is below company standards. Unless supervisors make employees believe that only a top quality product will be tolerated, the battle for quality will be a difficult one. This type of attitude stems from a pride in knowing that you are doing the best job possible under 138 the circumstances. 5.12 Costs of Quality Several of the larger companies have an organized approach to QA/QC and product safety. Those firms classi— fied as "shakers and movers" have recognized the importance of a quality emphasis, unlike other firms who have failed or been unwilling to comprehend the significance of QA/QC. The nemesis of QA/QC, sanitation, and food product safety is the dollar in the fact that, in normal accounting prac- tices, QA/QC do not show a profit. Those who control the financial resources of an organization are often individuals whose knowledge regarding QA/QC is extremely limited. To sell the importance of quality to these individuals, it is often necessary to relate quality in terms of dollars. The costs of quality have been defined by the American Society for Quality Control in the following four cate- gories: prevention, appraisal, internal failures and ex- ternal failures. Prevention includes those costs associ- ated with personnel engaged in designing, implementing, maintaining, and auditing the quality system. Appraisal costs are the costs resulting from measuring, evaluating or auditing products, ingredients, and purchased materials to assure conformance with established quality standards. Internal failures involve costs associated with defective products, ingredients, and materials that fail to meet quality requirements and result in manufacturing losses. External failures are quality costs arising due to 139 defective products being shipped to customers. The objective of monitoring quality costs in each of these four categories focuses on the improvement of organ- izational effectiveness. The first step is to identify all of the activities conducted to achieve fitness for use of the end product. Next, the avoidable and unavoidable costs of all of these activities are determined. This informa- tion is then interpreted and made available to all concerned. The next step entails the identification of opportunities for optimizing the firm's quality costs. Finally, a running tally of trends in each of these four categories of quality costs is maintained. These trends usually permit manage- ment to realize the categories in which the costs are con- centrated. In addition, management becomes aware of how small the prevention costs are in relation to the total quality costs. 5.13 Responsibilities Related to QA/QC The QA/QC function must exist at three levels of the foodservice system under study: top management, the come missary, and the restaurants. Top management is charged with the responsibility for developing corporate procedures and policies regarding QA/QC. These statements of the or- ganization's corporate strategic quality plan should be an integral part of the firm's overall mission. This quality system.must be clearly described in writing and approved by senior management. Comprehensive sanitation and product standard methods and procedures must also be developed. 140 In addition, top management is accountable for finished product standard quality and regulatory compliance. Senior management representatives are also responsible for the development of training materials for use at both the com- missary and restaurant levels. The onus is on top manage- ment to prepare a complete program for monitoring the quality of products in the commissary and the retail out- lets. Commissary QA/QC operates at a different level to fulfill the corporate strategic quality plan. Sufficient authority and organizational autonomy must be provided so that the QA/QC personnel can function without unnecessary administrative pressure. If QA/QC staff members report directly to the commissary plant manager and depend on that individual for personnel evaluations, the possibility exists for a superficial emphasis on quality. Separation of lines of authority and responsibility is necessary if the QA/QC effort is to be effective. The commissary QA/QC representatives are in charge of setting up personnel training programs. They are respon- sible for monitoring product quality from purchasing through transportation to the restaurant. The QA/QC commissary staff is responsible for checking products for conformance with specifications, determining the nature and extent of the variations, and establishing the significance of these variations. The QA/QC personnel are also in Charge of monitoring laboratory and production data. In addition, 141 the production departments must be provided with reliable technical expertise by the QA/QC staff and a means for out- side technical help in special circumstances. The commis- sary QA/QC inspectors have the responsibility for providing accept-reject decisions relative to both incoming materials and products produced in the commissary. The key to a successful and effective system for monitoring quality in a commissary foodservice organization lies in the emphasis on quality in the individual restau- rants. If the system is going to deteriorate at any organ- izational level, it is most likely to happen at the retail outlet level. The likelihood of a system breakdown is enhanced due to the multitude of locations and personnel. Every individual on the payroll of the restaurant must be made aware of their role in the corporate strategic quality plan by making an orientation related to quality concepts, procedures, and policies a part of every individual's training program. Quality problems should be reported to the store's manager or the appointed representative so that the situation can be remedied as soon as possible. Service staff should be encouraged to report cus- tomer complaints to management, and they should then be carefully analyzed. Product quality must be monitored from receipt to service, and restaurant staff members should be encouraged to be constantly on the alert for deviations from the organization's quality specifications. Restaurant management must maintain a communication link 142 with commissary QA/QC personnel. The goal is to minimize quality problems and, ultimately, increase customer satis- faction. 5.14 Inspections Fundamental to the success of a QA/QC program is the proper support and implementation of an inspection program. The inspection results provide information to management as to whether the system is effective. The underlying philo- sophy is that the earlier a defect or nonconformity is detected, the more the organization can save. The system of inspections and the authority for inspections should be clearly described in writing and be sanctioned by senior management. The status of inspections and reinspections must be readily determinable. Inspection staff, equipment, and procedures should be available as required to evaluate the process. These inspections are undertaken utilizing the specifications, procedures and policies defined by the organization's top management. It is necessary for all inspection personnel, in their roles as representatives of the corporate quality system, to meet defined minimum qualification requirements for their positions. They should have readily available the organization's specifications, procedures, and policies regarding quality that have been defined by management. The information should also include test procedures, work instructions, and other documents necessary to effectively perform the inspection role in the strategic quality plan. 143 The inspection personnel should have access to the necessary inspection equipment (e.g., thermometers, scales, analytical equipment, etc.) to-do their jobs effi- ciently. When appropriate,this equipment should be cali- brated prior to use and a record of this calibration should be maintained. Food products and ingredients that fail to meet the acceptance criteria prescribed by top management should be identified. It is imperative that these defec- tive or nonconforming products be segregated from accept- able products to prevent the inadvertent use of this mate- rial. Final acceptance of an inspected product must not be authorized prior to the resolution of all defects recorded for the product. The correction or elimination of nonconformities must be verified and recorded. Inspection results must be reported in a predefined, logical manner so that records of inspections are main- tained. Minimally, these inspection records should con- tain the following information: the inspector's name, the date, identification of the product (such as, invoice or batch number), the type of observation, the inspection procedure, the inspection results, and acceptance and/or the action taken in relation to any identified defici- encies. Organizational standards and regulatory codes may also require recording the inspection equipment used, calibration data, special procedures, and the qualifica- tions of personnel. In the case of identification of continuing conditions adverse to the maintenance of quality, 144 it is the responsibility of the quality system to notify top management. Top management must then take the neces- sary action to minimize or eliminate these conditions. If no action is taken, the corporate strategic quality plan is negatively affected. 5.2 Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point Concept The Hazard Analysis Critical Control Point (HACCP) concept is a preventive approach designed to bring the potential dangers associated with the production of a food product to management's attention. The thrust of HACCP is the development of an objective process associated with estimating the risks of producing and marketing a food product. HACCP is a communication tool designed to mini- mize the errors that can eventually become costly to the foodservice industry and its customers both in terms of dollars and health. The organization that allows a defec- tive product to harm even one consumer faces a serious erosion of public confidence, potential law suits and the ensuing ramifications, and the loss of sales and profits. HACCP is a preventive system focused on bringing potential dangers to management's attention for timely correction rather than after the health hazard has surfaced in the form of consumer illness. The HACCP procedure centers on an evaluation of four broad areas related to food product production: ingredient control and storage, equipment sanitation, personnel sanitation and time-temperature 145 combinations. ,5.21 Ingredient Control and Storage The Objectives of the purchasing function include maintaining adequate stock levels, minimizing the invest- ment in inventory, maintaining quality, sustaining the firm's competitive position, and maintaining value. The develOpment of ingredient specifications aid the organiza- tion in providing qualitative, sensory, quantitative and microbiological control. The use of standard purchase specifications is critical to the success of HACCP. Standard purchase specifications are precise, written descriptions of the quality and quantity factors desired in each product procured. Minimally, the standard purchase ,specification should include the name of the item, the quantity needed, the grade desired, the number of items per package, the unit on which the price is based and any other additional factors necessary to obtain the correct product. In the case of beef, additional factors would include the geographical area of production, the maximum microbiological load permitted, the state (i.e., fresh or frozen) in which the product should be delivered, the maximum product temp- erature at delivery, the specified maximum fat content, and relevant sensory factors particulary the factors that most strongly govern the firm's quality of design. These specifications may be altered based on raw material supply, menu item changes, and price. There should be some rational reason for the alteration, known to all, and known in 146 advance of need. Formal buying methods involve providing each sup- plier with a set of written specifications and the quantity needed for that buying period. The competitive buying pro- cedures facilitate communication between the buyer and the supplier and minimize problems with delivery of unaccept- able merchandise. Ultimately, purchasing decisions must be based on the intended use of the product coupled with a value analysis. The standard purchase specifications should be used by the receiving department to evaluate the quantity and quality of materials delivered. The objectives of food receiving are to perform an inspection, determine the quantity, evaluate the quality, check prices, and make an accept/reject decision. No merchandise should be allowed to be used until it has been sampled, examined or analyzed and accepted as satisfactory. In addition to a physical inspection, samples of beef must be evaluated for micro- biological load, product temperature, fat content, grade, and sensory factors (i.e., odor, feel, appearance). The delivery truck should also be inspected to determine freedom from contamination and infestation. The successful food receiving operation depends upon competent, well-trained personnel who are capable of evalu- ating product quality. The weights of incoming products must be determined with an accurate scale. Even if the supplier is trustworthy, unintentional errors can still 147 occur. All items delivered should be recorded on the receiving department's daily report that lists the date of delivery, the invoice or purchase order number, the sup- plier, a description of the merchandise, the quantity delivered, the unit and unit price, and the price exten- sion. In addition, the report should list whether the product was accepted or rejected, and if rejected, the reasons why. All meat items should be tagged upon receipt to facili- tate product traceability. The tag should contain the following information: date of receipt, supplier's name, description of the product, the weight, the unit price and the price extension. This system of tagging food products helps, first, guarantee prOper stock rotation and the use of the first-in, first-out (FIFO) inventory system and, second, product traceability. The meat products should be stored as promptly as possible after delivery. The objectives of food storage include maintenance of adequate stock levels, minimizing the losses due to theft and pilferage, and minimizing product quality losses due to contamination, spoilage and microbiological proliferation. .The individual in charge of the storage areas is accountable to management for systematic inventory control. The scope of inventory con— trol is influenced by the particular storage area under consideration. Regardless of the storage conditions, the food products should be monitored and inspected at 148 regularly scheduled intervals while in storage. The inspections should include both physical and Chemical tests defined in the organization's policies and procedures manual. Tests must include product temperature, pH, color, odor, and appearance, and microbiological loads. The refrigerated storage areas should be checked daily for cleanliness, freedom from contamination, and ambient tem- peratures. The recommended storage temperature for refrig- erated meat is 40°F (4°C) or below. Frozen storage areas should be maintained at temperatures of 0°F (-18°C) or below. Stock rotation and the FIFO inventory system are essential if product deterioration is to be minimized. Product theft and pilferage can be reduced if a per- petual inventory system is established for meat items. Stock record cards record at all times the amount of a product on hand. This perpetual inventory system can be maintained on the firm's computer. Additions to and dele- tions from the perpetual inventory are made when products are received or issued to production, respectively. Per- petual inventories offer the additional advantage of tracking product usage and, therefore, can be used to calculate raw material yield. An actual count of what is in storage is called a physical inventory. The physical inventory, usually taken at least once a month, verifies the perpetual inventory figures and expedites the product purchasing process. Storage areas should be locked when not in use to minimize theft and pilferage. 149 In-process product control is important if corporate specifications are to be realized. The QA/QC staff and the production supervisor and personnel monitor the product be- fore and during the manufacturing process. Product evalu- ation should take place at the identified critical control points during the process flow. Samples for analysis are sent to the QA/QC lab and results returned to the processing supervisor in time to pemmit process modifications based on the lab analysis. Since timing is crucial, these in-process tests should be classified as high priority. Finished products should be evaluated on an on-going basis to determine whether they confOrm to the established specifications. The ground beef patties must be tested for fat content, odor, color, appearance, and microbiological load. Finished patties should be coded with the date of production and the count and/or weight per case. This system of coding will permit product traceability and expedite a recall program, if one is deemed necessary. In addition, the FIFO inventory system will be easier to maintain. 5.22 Equipment Sanitation Equipment sanitation is a critical control point because inadequate cleaning and sanitizing of equipment and cross-contamination of food products can be responsible for significant health hazards. An effective equipment sanita- tion program is the result of extensive planning, personnel training, close supervision of cleaning and sanitizing lactivities, and attention to the details of the established 150 cleaning procedures. Equipment sanitation should be a part of the firm's planned approach to an effective cleaning pro- gram. Written cleaning and sanitizing procedures provide a common reference point and expedite the overall effort. Unacceptable equipment cleaning can be corrected if manage- ment is willing to develop cleaning schedules and specific procedures for each piece of equipment and production area in the commissary and restaurant. These procedures should be communicated to workers in a well-planned orientation and training program, and posted in water-proof coverings adjacent to each piece of equipment and area. Detailed checklists should be developed for super- visory use in evaluating the cleaning and sanitizing effort. Employee involvement is the key to keeping the program heading in a positive direction. If informed of the rea- sons behind targets and procedures on a regular basis, cleaning personnel will tend to put suggestions into prac- tice more easily, recommend improvements more frequently, and keep the program working. Cleaning and sanitizing per- sonnel should be cognizant of how they are doing relative to the total effort. Food production equipment is maintained in a clean and sanitary condition by the application of cleaning sys- tems after each production run. Cleaning systems consist of a sequence of rinse, detergent, and sanitizer applica- tions in combination with the proper concentrations and 151 temperatures. An effective cleaning system not only con- trols the accumulations of soil, but also the development of microorganisms on equipment surfaces. The objective is to prevent the contamination of the food product when it comes into contact with the equipment. The cleaning and sanitizing effort should be economically performed without such adverse side effects as contamination of the food product by cleaner and sanitizer residues or corrosion of the equipment. Today, foodservice operations must institute a pro- gram of cost-conscious sanitation to realize effective cleaning and sanitizing with regard to the investment in these areas. A cost-benefit analysis is to a tool to eval- uate all relevant factors, such as labor cost, chemical cost, water usage, cleaning times and energy consumption related to heating water and producing steam. The cost- benefit analysis attempts to quantify these costs and com- pare them to the benefits realized. 5.23 Personnel Sanitation Personnel sanitation is a critical control point be— cause humans are often associated with the contamination or mishandling of food products. One of the most important responsibilities of foodservice management is to train em- ployees in the principles and procedures of foodservice Asanitation. Employees should be trained to approach the basic operating activities of a foodservice with a sanitary outlook. The training of foodservice workers regarding 152 sanitary food storage, production, and service will not only minimize problems with foodborne disease outbreaks, but will also maximize customer satisfaction. A.formal training program also offers other advantages related to a reduction in employee turnover, increased product and service consistency, higher productivity, decreased absen- teeism, higher morale, and an increased probability that the job will be accomplished in an approved manner. A planned training effort should be executed in an atmosphere that enhances employee learning. To be effec- tive, employee training should be a continuous or on-going program. The National Institute for the Foodservice Industry (NIFI) has developed a program for certification of foodser- vice management and employees in the area of applied food- ervice sanitation. NIFI's major mission is the education and training of people to meet the foodservice industry's expanding needs. The NIFI certification program should be a vital part of any foodservice operation's total training effort. Personnel training programs should cover the specifics of acceptable foodhandling techniques, personal hygiene, proper cooking and serving methods, and general sanitation of the physical facility. The core of a personnel sanita- tion program can stem from the Ten Commandments of Safe Foodservice (NIFI, 1978). These Ten Commandments are a positive approach to the most frequently cited sanitation violations in foodservice operations. Specifically, the 153 Ten Commandments of Safe Foodservice are as follows: 1. 10. Maintain an internal product temperature of 45°F (7°C) or less when refrigerating poten- tially hazardous food products. Use extreme care in storing and handling food products prepared in advance of service. Cook or heat-process food products so that they reach the recommended temperatures. Require strict personal hygiene on the part of all foodservice workers and prevent in- fected employees from entering food storage, production, and service areas. Monitor internal product temperatures of food in hot-holding devices to be certain that the temperature is 140°F (60°C) or greater. Carefully inspect and clean raw ingredients that are added to food products requiring min- imal or no cooking. Rapidly reheat leftovers to a minimum internal product temperature of 165°F (74°C). Avoid cross-contamination from raw to cooked and ready-to-serve food products by hands, utensils, and equipment. Clean and sanitize all food-contact surfaces after every use. Specify that food products be obtained only from approved sources. 154 These Ten Commandments of Safe Foodservice should be communicated to all new employees to provide the basis for a sanitary outlook. They should also be periodically re- viewed with employees who have worked for the organization for some time to serve as a reminder. Both commissary and restaurant management and employees can minimize problems with personnel sanitation by emphasizing adherence to these Ten Commandments of Safe Foodservice. 5.24 Time-Temperature Relationship Time-temperature is a critical control point because several outbreaks of foodborne disease have been linked to unacceptable food product storage, heating, and cooling practices. Within each foodservice system, identification of time-temperature critical control points involved in food handling is of paramount importance for adequate con— trol of food safety and quality. In addition, sensory attributes of the food product can be negatively affected through inadequate time-temperature control. To minimize these adverse effects on the food product, it is recommended that the item not be exposed to the temperature danger zone any longer than absolutely necessary. The temperature danger zone covers the range of 45°F (7°C) to 140°F (60°C), as defined by the U.S. Public Health Service. The average temperature history of the ground beef patties revealed that the product is likely to be in the temperature danger zone during two of the critical con- trol points: transport and serve. The transportation of 155 the patties took as long as 12 hours from the time the product left the commissary until it arrived at the restau- rant. Product environmental temperatures ranged from 39.2°F (4°C) to a high of 50°F (10°C). These temperatures should be monitored on a regular, random basis as a part of the overall quality system. Any problems associated with delivery truck refrigeration equipment can be quickly identi- fied and corrected. Product temperatures were also in the temperature danger zone during the serve critical control point. This problem is not major, however, because the time involved is no more than five minutes. In addition, many of the heat- labile non-spore forming pathogens will be destroyed during the cooking operation. Raw fresh and frozen beef delivered to the commissary should be examined to obtain an average product temperature. Accept/reject decisions should be based, in part, on that temperature check. Products arriving at the commissary with temperatures in excess of 40°F (4°C) should be classi- fied as marginal and should be accepted or rejected based on the results of additional inspections regarding microbio- logical load. Likewise, ground beef patties delivered to the restaurant should arrive at temperatures of 40°F (4°C) or below. It is important to have a member of the manage- ment team or its representative present to check and record these incoming prOduct temperatures. 156 Products stored refrigerated or frozen in the commis- sary and chilled in the restaurant should be checked daily to determine internal product temperature. In addition, storage area temperatures should be monitored daily to min- imize potential problems associated with microbiological proliferation and food spoilage. Establishing and monitor- ing time-temperature standards in both the commissary and restaurants provides a practical method for estimating product quality and safety. Once these standards are established by management, they must be communicated to lower levels of management and the employees during the training phase. The individuals involved should be trained in methods of accurately and correctly determining and recording product and storage area temperatures. 5.25 HACCP as a Management Tool The HACCP procedure was used as a template to analyze this commissary foodservice system. HACCP was designed to identify system deficiencies so that corrective action can be instituted before actual problems surface. HACCP can minimize errors expensive to both the organization and its target market by providing information to be used as the basis for management action. The value of HACCP is pre- cisely what management makes of it. System deficiencies can be ignored at the risk of increased health hazards, decreased sales and the potential ultimate destruction of the organization. Alternatively, the identification of these deficiencies can lead to their correction. 157 HACCP feedback characteristics provide a measure of management efficiency and effectiveness. If management is sincerely interested in satisfying the needs and wants of the target market at a profit, the information obtained as a result of the HACCP investigation can provide the basis for system alteration and fine-tuning. The HACCP concept has a direct impact on the firm's bottom line because in- creased satisfaction of the organization's clientele will enhance the firm's profitability. 5.3 Ground Beef Patty Weights Ground beef patty weights were recorded and analyzed using both covariant analysis and least-squares linear re- gression. The covariable was the pressure setting on the Formax patty machine in psi. This covariable was investi- gated to determine its effect, if any, on the weight of the ground beef patties. The regression analysis investigated the effect of the percent fat in the raw beef (pretest) versus the percent fat in the ground beef patty (post test) and the patty weight. In addition, the process capability procedure and analysis was used to determine whether the process for producing the ground beef patties was in statis- tical control. 5.31 Covariant Analysis The GENSTAT V computer program used to analyze the effect of the covariable psi adjusted the data to an aver- age psi to facilitate the analysis. The covariate analysis for batches indicated that no significant differences 158 (a = .05) existed for batches. Any differences that did appear can be explained by any factor correlated or con- founded with batch (e.g., different production days, dif- ferent product temperatures, or different percentages of fat). Most of the defined differences were associated with position. The position differences were significant (0 = .05) due to either unequal pressure exerted by the For- max patty machine in the four different positions or a dif- ferent mechanism for delivering the meat to the four posi- tions, or some other unknown differences. A posterior test on all possible contrasts failed to reveal where the dif- ferences existed. No trends could be pinpointed in posi- tions using the Bonferroni t-test. It appears that, as the proportion of frozen meat in a batch of ground beef increases, the patty weights de- crease. This relationship may be due to the fact that, for a given psi, it is not as easy to squeeze the air out of the frozen meat as it is from the fresh meat. It is not possible to accurately control the patty weights by altering machine pressure. Pressure was not specifically identified as a factor that influences the weight of the ground beef patties. Patty weights are controlled within a relatively tight range for each batch as evidenced by the standard deviation. Whatever problems there may be with weight control, they cannot be attributed to the patty machine. This analysis did not identify the specific factors that 159 have an effect on patty weights. Patty weight control is discussed further under Process Capability Analysis. 5.32 Percent Fat Analysis The least-squares linear regression analysis examined the effect of the percent fat in the raw beef (pretest) on the percent fat in the ground beef patties (post test). Even though a possible correlation was identified between these variables, the coefficient of determination indicated that only 42 percent of the variance in the post test could be attributed to the linear relationship with the pretest. Either there were confounding variables, or the relation- ship between the post test and the pretest was confounded by other factors. Therefore, it will be difficult to accu- rately predict the post test from the pretest as the regres- sion line is almost horizontal. In conclusion, approxi- mately 60 percent of the influence on the percent fat in the ground beef patties was attributable to factors other than the percent fat in the raw beef. The percent fat in the pretest was also analyzed to determine if this value had an effect on patty weight. A negative correlation of -0.02 existed between the percent fat in the pretest and patty weight. This negative corre- lation appears to indicate that, as the fat content in- creased, there was a slight decrease in patty weight. This relationship is not very strong and it appears that there is no strong causal relationship between pretest fat contents and patty weights. 160 Based on the identified desires of the target mar- ket, management must decide whether there is an appreci- able quality difference related only to the fat content of the ground beef patties and whether the fat content of the patties should be carefully controlled. The problems asso- ciated with not controlling the amount of fat include: yield problems, legal problems, economic problems, and possible flavor effects. The meat room production staff is not making a complete adjustment for the actual fat con- tent of the boneless beef and beef plates. The single fat sample in the pretest may not accurately represent the actual fat content of these raw materials. If the pretest is to be a quality measure, there should be a nearly 100 percent correlation between the pretest fat content and the post test fat content. Sixty percent of the variability is unaccounted for. If the firm wants to use the pretest results as a guide to the formula- tion of ground beef, they should try to identify the source of the remaining variability. 5.33 Process Capability Analysis The process capability study and analysis was con- ducted to 1) determine the precision with which patty weights can be controlled, 2) discover the presence of un- controlled variation in the patty weights, and 3) to make recommendations to correct those problems, if they can be corrected. The observed grand mean, R, of the patty weights was 44.32 grams compared to the corporate 161 specification of 45.4 grams :1 gram. The frequency (per- centage) histogram and the cumulative percentage (normal probability) plot were constructed and analyzed. The analyses showed that the process is not in statis- tical control, and, moreover, is producing product 50 per- cent of which is out of specifications. This figure covers the range of 44.4 to 46.4 grams established by management. Over one-half of the patty weights obtained in the process capability procedure failed to fall within the acceptable range. It is therefore concluded that the process is not capable of meeting the specified tolerances except as noted in the next section. Management must decide what to do based on the following alternative courses of action. .First of all, the tolerances can be widened to reflect what is realistically obtainable. Based on the analysis, a specified tolerance of 44 grams :2 grams may be more realistic. This widening of the tolerance would bring substantially all of the patties within the specified range without any alteration in the average patty weight. Management might also consider changing the process to realize the original specified tolerances. This change could involve a large investment in capital to purchase a patty machine capable of meeting the specified tolerances. Finally, management could decide to stop talking about the standard for patty weights. The standard would be removed from the Meat Department Daily Weight and Fat record form 162 and the ground beef patties would no longer be weighed. In two or three years, the standard for patty weights will be forgotten. In addition to decreasing the inspection time required, this option would also rid the organization of a standard that it is not capable of maintaining. Ground beef patties would be sold to the restaurants based on count, not weight. This last alternative course of action may be the most desirable because it is the least costly. Any decision regarding the speCified standard for ground beef patty weights must be made by management after completing a cOst- benefit analysis of each alternative. Management does have one other possible course of action; that is, do nothing. However, making no decision is, in fact, a decision to remain with the present standard even though it is unattain- able. This option is not recommended simply because it does not make good business sense. As discussed previously, the average weights vary with batch for unknown reasons. Therefore, the use of an R chart is not recommended. However, a range chart might prove useful: take and weigh one patty from each position and plot the values of the observed range in weights on the R chart (Figure 4.522). This will determine whether the observed range falls within or outside of the range limits. When the range falls outside of the limits, the firm should try to find out what is causing the variation. 163 5.34 Batch Mixing of Ground Beef Patties Even though there are specifications, in practice there are at least four independent variables that deter- mine the fat content of the ground beef patties. The four raw product variables are the weight, in pounds, of the boneless beef, b; the fat fraction of the boneless beef, Fb; the weight, in pounds, of the beef plates, p; and the fat fraction of the beef plates, PP. The batch weight, h, is determined by the weight of the boneless beef, b, plus the weight of the beef plates, p: h=b+p The fat fraction in the ground beef patties, Fh, is expressed by the following formula: F = (Fb x b) + (Fp x p) h (b+P) Assuming a total batch weight of 480 pounds, the ratio and amounts of boneless beef and beef plates to be mixed to yield ground beef patties of various fat fractions were cal- culated. These data are presented in Table 5.340. 164 TABLE 5.340 RECIPES FOR VARIOUS STANDARD FAT FRACTIONS IN A 480-POUND BATCH OF GROUND BEEF PATTIES1 WEIGHT OF WEIGHT OF GROUND BEEF BONELESS BEEF FAT FRACTION BEEF (lbs.) PLATES (lbs.) RATIO OF 2 Fh b p b.p .15 480. 0 All boneless beef .18 438.8 41.2 11:1 .20 411.4 68.6 6:1 .22 384. 96. 4:1 .24 355.6 124.4 3:1 .50 0 480. All beef plates lAssumes that Fb = .15; Fp = .50 and h = b + p = 480 pounds. 2 Rounded to one or two significant figures. 165 The variation in fat content of the ground beef patties is governed by the variation in the four raw product variables, shown in the following equations: - OFh GFh 6Fh OFh and OFh = (FP - Fb)b 5" 2 OFh = - (FP - Fb)p 55 (p-I-m2 6F _11= _._E.__ OF p-I-b P OFh b The derivative, AFh, gives the change in fat content as a function of changes in the four different raw product variables. The partial derivatives examine the change in each of the four production variables. Since each inde— pendent variable influences the function differently, con- sidering the instantaneous rate of change of the function, it is necessary to isolate the effect of each of the inde- pendent variables. When considering how the fat fraction of the ground beef patties changes as the fat fraction of the beef plates change, the other independent raw product 166 variables must be held constant. The same is true when con- . sidering the effects of the other independent variables. A one percent increase or error in each of the raw product variables was assumed to determine the percent error in the fat fraction of the ground beef patties, Fh. These data are presented in Table 5.341 for a recommended Fh of 22 percent, Fb = .15, b = 384 pounds, Fp = .50 and p = 96 pounds. Note that a one percent error in the weight of the boneless beef produces the largest percent error in the fat content. It is, therefore, crucial to know the weights of the two components during the batching operation. These data illustrate the fact that it is possible to batch process the ground beef patties if the weights and percents fat of the boneless beef and beef plates can be accurately determined. The formula for a specified batch size, with a desirable fat content, can be calculated if the four raw product variables are known. The decision on whether or not to implement this batching procedure is a management determination, which should be made after con- sidering a cost-benefit analysis of the situation. An added advantage to this batching approach lies in the ability to calculate yields of the raw product. On a given production day, the amount of raw product used to produce the ground beef patties could be calculated. With raw material product cost available, it is possible to calculate the cost to produce a given amount of ground beef patties. These produCt costs could be used by management 167 TABLE 5.341 PERCENT ERROR IN THE FAT FRACTION OF THE GROUND BEEF PATTIES DUE TO A ONE PERCENT VARIANCE OR ERROR IN THE INDIVIDUAL VARIABLEl PERCENT PRODUCTION ERRog IN VARIABLE Fb b Fp p Fh Fh AFb —§— .1515 384 .50 96 .2212 +.55 b AF "EB .15 384 .5050 96 .2210 +.46 P Ab 15 387 84 50 92 16 21 —b- e e e e e 72 -1e27 i? .15 383.04 .50 96.96 .2207 +.32 l . . . Assumes a one percent increase or error in the variable. 2Assumes a target Fh of .22 or 22 percent fat. 168 to set the prices for the ground beef patties paid by the restaurants. It is possible to accurately calculate the weight in grams of the ground beef patty, Wh, given the following assumptions: the average fat density, pf, is 0.85 g/cm3; pt, is 1.2 g/cm3; the fixed 3 volume of a patty machine die, V0, is 40.36 cm ; and the fat the average lean tissue density, fraction of the ground beef patty, Fh. The formula for cal- culating the weight of the ground beef patty is: W=pfxptxvo _ h of + (at - of) Fh Then the change in patty weight, AWh, is p X 0 AW = - t f 2 AF [pf+ (pt- pf)Fh] 1‘ If a Fh of .225 is assumed, then the Wh is 44.5 grams. The lowest observed Fh was .19 with.a corresponding Wh of 44.91 grams. The maximum value for Fh observed was .248 with a corresponding Wh of 43.94 grams. Therefore, it can be concluded that the variation in the fat content from batch to batch is one of the factors that accounts for the variation in the patty weights. As the fat fraction in a patty increases, the weight of the patty decreases. This firm cannot consistently produce a 44.5 gram patty without increasing the size of the patty machine die holes. If the firm cannot control the fat content in a batch, they cannot control the weight of the patty either 169 because of the fixed volume patty being produced. If the. batch is not well—mixed, the average fat content may vary from one to two percent from patty to patty. 5.4 Microbiological Analysis Both the raw boneless beef and beef plates were examined using total plate counts (TPCS) as the indicator of microbiological load. The incoming fresh.beef was moni- tored less frequently than the frozen beef due to the finite resource base (time, equipment, and personnel) avail- able. The ground beef patties were analyzed immediately after production to determine the TPCS. On days when the lab staff was extremely busy, only the patties produced within the commissary were plated and counted. No micro- biological testing was conducted once the patties were stored in the commisSary and shipped to the restaurants. In addition, TPCS were obtained from swab tests on selected sensitive equipment locations during the lab inspector's pre-operation inspection. 5.41 Microbiology of Ground Beef The spoilage organisms most likely to attack ground beef are the gram-negative Pseudomonads and the lactic acid bacteria (i.e., Streptococci, Leuconostocs, Lacto- bacilli, and Pediococci). These organisms proliferate well at refrigerated temperatures. Approximately 99 percent of the organisms likely to be in or on ground beef are the gram-negative organisms. The presence of these gram- negative psychrophiles is indicated in ground beef by the 170 development of a stale, sour odor at refrigerator tempera- tures. ' The surfaces of grinders and equipment may be contam- inated with gram-negative psychrotrophs. These organisms are inoculated into the meat when the product comes into contact with these surfaces. Beyond that, other pathogenic organisms (e.g., Staphylococci, Salmonella, Escherichia and Streptococci) may be introduced into the meat from human sources. At higher temperatures, one would expect to find bacteria of the following genera: Bacillus, Clostridium, Proteus, Pseudomonas, Alcaligenes, Micrococcus and Sarcinia. Molds likely to be present at these higher temperatures are Mucor and Penicillium. 5.42 Total Plate Counts Total plate counts (TPCS) on ground beef give the inspector a clue as to the handling history of the product, the degree of freshness, the state of decomposition, and remaining product shelf-life. In some cases, TPC may re- flect the sanitary status of the food product. It must be noted that TPCS are made somewhat untenable as indicators of the hazardous nature of a food due to the fact that only a fraction of the TPCS may represent pathogenic organisms. In some instances, it is possible to enumerate low TPCS from a food product that carries a toxin. The toxin- producers may have reproduced and formed their toxins and died as a result of unfavorable conditions. This toxin may remain stable in an environment that does not favor 171 the continued survival of the vegetative cells. Beyond that, it is virtually impossible to correlate the appear- ance of the meat with the number of microorganisms present. Meat that is green in color may have undergone a pigment change caused by relatively low numbers of microaerophilic lactics. The TPCS and the gram-negative counts may both be relatively low in these products. TPC may be a better indicator of the overall sanita- tion program effectiveness than an indication of the condi- tion of a food product. Since psychrophiles are most likely to influence flavor and odor changes in ground beef, a better indication of the sanitary quality of these food products may be the number of psychrophiles present. These psychrophiles can be responsible for adverse flavor and odor changes in the product. The enumeration of psychrophiles is basically the same procedure as that used for TPCS with the exception that the incubation conditions are 41° to 45°F (5°-7°C) for five to 7 days, rather than 90°F (32°C) for 48 hours. It is possible to infer that, if these psychrophile counts reach the range ofIlOI7 organisms per gram, some of the customers will be able to detect off- flavors and odors in the ground beef patties. The data show that the TPCs have increased nearly a loo-fold during the time that the product spends in the commissary. The unanswered question is where this contamr ination comes from. It behooves the management to identify the sources of contamination and the specific types of 172 microorganisms involved. Once identified, action can be taken to reduce these unacceptable increases. 5.43 Incoming Product Testing It is not possible to improve the quality of a product by the inspection process. If the quality factor is not present initially, it is highly unlikely that the quality can be added to the product during processing. In relation to QA/QC inspections, it is better to eliminate a defective or nonconforming product as early as possible before additional resources are spent processing the un- acceptable product. That is the goal of incoming product testing. In a situation where resources are limited, the test- ing of the income products should remain a high priority. Coupled with a tagging system that maintains product trace- ability, all incoming products must be sampled, evaluated and tested to determine conformance to the established product specifications. In addition to temperature checks, incoming raw fresh and frozen beef should be examined for fat content, odor, appearance (e.g., dehydration) and microbiological load. 'The ICMSF has recommended sampling plans to compen- sate for the variability in bacterial populations between subsamples. These sampling plans generally improve the reliability of the microbiological results. A sampling plan is basically a statement of the acceptance criteria applied to a lot of food products based upon recommended 173 examination of a specific number of sample units by desig- nated methods. The sampling plan consists of the following specifications: the number of sample units, n, from a lot that must be examined; the maximum acceptable or allowable number of sample units, c, that may exceed the microbio- logical criterion; the maximum number or level of relevant bacteria per gram, m; and the number, M, that indicates the unacceptable quantity relative to either spoilage potential, health hazards, or sanitary indicators. The sampling plans presented in Table 4.720 detail the specifics for incoming beef. The three-class plan is specified for chilled and frozen meat TPCS. This three- class plan is desirable where count or concentration of organisms are important. This plan is less affected by nonrandom variations between sample units. In addition, a three-class plan is able to measure the frequency of the values in the m to M range and alert management as to mar- ginal products. The two-class sampling plan is recommended for Salmonella testing on the incoming beef because pre- sence/absence tests are desirable. It is suggested that the commissary lab staff use these sampling plans as a part of the complete inspection of incoming beef products. Coupled with product tempera- ture determinations, these sampling plans approach the product accept/reject decisions in a logical and objective manner. NO product should be processed in the commissary before it is deemed acceptable by trained QA/QC personnel. 174 Such a management policy will minimize problems with.un- acceptable products discovered too late in the production sequence. The earlier a defect is detected, the more money the organization can save. 5.44 Finished Product Testing The recommended sampling plan for nonfrozen ground beef was taken from a proposed Canadian standard. Table 4.720 details the specifics of this sampling plan for both TPCS and Salmonella. Inadequate cooking of nonfrozen ground beef patties may permit the survival of Salmonella. Beyond that, the organisms may be spread from raw to cooked meat via the hands of foodhandlers, equipment, utensils, and food contact surfaces. This cross-contamination may occur after the product has been adequately cooked. It is recommended that the commissary QA/QC regularly inspect each day's production of ground beef patties util- izing the specifics of this sampling plan. The lab staff does not now monitor Salmonella in the finished patties and there is no special reason to recommend that they do. Most, if not all, of the Salmonella present in the raw ground beef patties will be destroyed during the cooking process. In addition, finished products should be examined periodically for psychrophile counts, no less than once a week. These psychrophile counts are perhaps most important when evalu- ating products that have been stored for one or two days in the commissary walk-in refrigeration unit. Finished prod- ucts held refrigerated in the individual restaurants should 175 also be analyzed for psychrophilic activity. At random, a restaurant should be selected each week to ship a five- pound field sample of the oldest ground beef patties in storage back to the commissary. This field sample can be delivered to the commissary aboard the returning company- Owned truck and evaluated for psychrophilic load, odor, appearance, and flavor by the QA/QC staff. Over time, an estimate of the normal expected shelf-life of the products can be obtained. 5.45 Equipment Swab Tests The Pareto principle and analysis offered a rational and objective approach to the investigation of bacterial populations on sensitive equipment locations. The modified evaluation procedure resulted in a system that Simplified the analysis and provided more useful information. In- creased communication flow between QA/QC staff and the sanitation crews permitted a more intensive cleaning and sanitizing effort. Even though the modified scheme was successful in reducing the amount of contamination added by meat room equipment, the sanitation effort still has a long way to go. With a maximum attainable score of 143, the score in- creased from 69.5 to 89.5 during the six week study. Even though improvement was realized, additional improvement is still possible and, no doubt, desirable. This additional improvement can take place if the priority ranking system remains in effect. 176 Once all 24 swab sites score a priority ranking of 3, each site will be swabbed once each 4 periods (2 weeks). Ifya swab site scores less than 3, it again becomes high priority. This system will be effective only if the com— missary staff continues to use it. Recall that, in the past, there was no systematic evaluation and far too many swab sites yielded too numerous to count (TNTC) results. One comment made by a lab staff member during the six- week study was that the procedure required an additional 20 tO 30 minutes a week compared to the old system and there- fore, was undesirable. Whether the additional time is beneficial, in terms of the results, is a management deci- sion based on a cost-benefit analysis. If the benefits exceed the costs, management should require the lab staff to use the modified scheme because it is proven effective. It is recommended that the cutting knives and boards be added permanently to the list of sensitive locations to monitor. During this investigation, a member of the QA/QC staff made the point that there is a difference in clean- ability between stainless steel and plastic surfaces. That being the case, it may be necessary to use a more concen- trated solution of sanitizer on the plastic surface to increase the effectiveness. Whenever it is discovered by checking the Alert Sheet that the sanitation effect on plastic surfaces (e.g., conveyor belts and cutting boards) is ineffective, the QA/QC staff should recommend to manage- ment that the sanitation crew's efforts need to be evaluated, 177 or that the plastic surfaces need to be replaced. Manage- ment can effectively use the equipment swab tests as a mea- sure to indicate how well the sanitation crew is accomplish- ing its objectives. 5.46 Employee Swab Tests Periodically, no less than once a month, it is recom- mended that skin swabs be taken of commissary production employees. These results will permit the QA/QC staff to determine the human potential for contamination of ground beef patties. In addition, the QA/QC staff might, as part of the regular restaurant inspection, swab food surfaces, refrigerated storage areas, equipment, preparers, and ser- vers. This testing would obviously be scheduled less fre- quently due to present staff limitations. 5.5 Nutrition Considerations The nutritional profile of the ground beef patties was estimated using values from the U.S. Department of Agriculture Handbook No. 456. Recommended Daily Dietary Allowances (RDA) for the 23 to 50 year age group were used to determine the Index of Nutritional Quality (INQ). The INQ is an expression of the nutrient density of a food. It is the relationship between the extent to which a food meets the requirement for a specific nutrient compared to the extent it meets the needs for energy for an individual. 5.51 Index of Nutritional Quality The ground beef patties are considered to be a source of protein, phosphorus, iron, and riboflavin for both males 178 and females in the 23 to 50 age group. In addition, the product is considered to be a source of niacin for males only. The ground beef patties are considered to be a good or excellent source of protein and phosphorus for both males and females and iron for males only. What remains to be considered is the effects of each of the process flow steps on each of these specific nutrients. 5.52 Nutrient Retention in Meat If nutrient retention was the only basis for process evaluation, the choice of which process to use might be a relatively simple one. Nutrient retention is only one of the many considerations in food processing compounded by the fact that individual nutrients exhibit unique degrad- ation rates. In addition to nutrient retention, the food product pH, color, flavor, texture and microbial load must be taken into consideration. Each process flow step under consideration might affect the specific nutrients in dif- ferent ways. Some losses of nutrients already will have occurred before the product reaches the commissary, the extent of which depends on the types of foods purchased. Regarding nutrient retention, the most important aspect of food receiving is to store the product as soon as possible after delivery by the supplier. This procedure will minimize exposure to the temperature danger zone and the thawing and subsequent refreezing of frozen products. Losses of specific nutrients during storage may take place if such 179 variables as temperature, humidity, time, and light are not controlled. Generally, fluctuating freezer temperatures have a more adverse effect on texture and flavor than on nutrient retention.f Storage losses, in some cases the result of improper packaging, have a less substantial influence on nutrient retention than do the various stages of the prepreparation of animal products (including thawing, trimming, cutting, grinding, and forming). Thaw losses during the defrosting of frozen meats may be of-major concern. The major losses of vitamins and, to a lesser degree, minerals, from foods often occur during the final preparation in the foodservice operation prior to consumption. Nutrient losses may occur in all forms of cooking as a result of the application of heat and other factors such as drip loss and leaching. These losses are directly influenced by the type of cooking method utilized. Meat cooked on a griddle retains more protein (i.e., less drip loss) than meats cooked with moist heat. The major sources of nutrient losses during the prepa- ration and service of animal products are: thaw drip, especially from comminuted meats; cooking drip; nutrient leaching; heat losses, and excessive hot holding of cooked foods. The specific nutrient losses are influenced by the nutrient profile of the food product and the extent of pro- cessing, storing, heating, and holding. Minerals are generally more stable than vitamins under conditions of 180 handling and processing, and losses are negligible pro- vided that losses by physical means (e.g., leaching, thaw exudate) are avoided. Protein nutritive values are gener- ally not substantially affected during handling, processing, and distribution. 5.53 Retention of Specific Nutrients The proteins in beef are considered to be high quality nutrients due to the types and amounts of amino acids pres- ent. Meat proteins are classified as complete proteins because they contain all of the essential amino acids in the proportions needed by the body. Cooking of meat begins the breakdown of collagen due to partial hydrolysis. Cooking also enhances digestibility and palatability of meat pro- teins. There is little or no nutritive quality change in the beef proteins as indicated by monitoring the tryptophan, methionine, and lysine availability during cooking and processing methods (Smith and Minor, 1974). Little, if any, of the essential amino acids in meats are destroyed during processing and cooking. Maximum cooking losses range from a low of 5 percent for phenylalanine to a high of 40 percent for lysine (Livingston et a1., 1973). Generally, the amino acids and proteins present in meats are not significantly altered by pH changes, air or oxygen, or light. Phosphorus is a macromineral that is widely distri- buted in foods. In general a diet with an adequate protein intake also provides adequate amounts of phosphorus. This is true because phosphorus is a component of most proteins. 181 The phosphorus content of beef is not significantly altered during storage, processing, or cooking because the mineral is relatively stable to pH, oxygen, light and heat. Maxi- mum losses are expected not to exceed three percent (Guthrie, 1979). Iron is present in foods in both the heme and nonheme form. Heme iron is the form found in blood and muscle tissue; therefore, this is the form present in beef. The heme form of this micronutrient is highly available and not affected by the composition of the diet. The nonheme form, found in cereals and vegetables, is less readily available and absorbed. Meats improve the body's absorption of non- heme iron. The absorption of iron depends on its avail-‘ ability, as well as the combination of foods eaten. Beef is a relatively good source of iron because muscle tissue contains myoglobin, an: iron containing pigment linked with a protein. Cooking losses of iron only occur in discarded cooking water and, therefore, a substantial portion of the iron in meats will be retained. Iron is not significantly destroyed by pH, oxygen, light or heat and the retention is likely to be approximately 97 percent (Guthrie, 1979). Riboflavin is a relatively stable member of the B group of vitamins. This nutrient is unaffected by acids, oxidation and heat: however, it is inactivated by alkalis and light. Since riboflavin is only slightly soluble in water, it will not be affected substantially by the pro- cessing stages associated with the production of the ground 182 beef patties. Niacin exists as nicotinic acid (niacin) and nicotin- amide (niacinamide) in foods. This B vitamin is extremely stable to acids, alkalis, light, oxidation and heat. Little of this nutrient will be lost during the normal pro- cedures of food processing and preparation. The essential amino acid, tryptophan, is converted into niacin in the body. Beef is an excellent source of protein and niacin due, in part, to this conversion. This analysis concentrated only on those nutrients in beef classified by the INQ procedure as sources or good or excellent sources. A discussion of other nutrients (e.g., thiamin) was omitted since none fulfilled the INQ criteria. As evidenced by the stability of these specific nutrients, it is highly unlikely that the ground beef patties would drop from sources to poor sources during the processing and preparation procedures employed. For example, to drop from a good or excellent source of protein to a source of protein for males, the precooked ground beef patty weight must be decreased from a total of 88.6 grams to approxi- mately 25 grams. Similarly, the precooked weight must drop to approximately 27 grams to become merely a source of pro- tein for females. As long as reasonable care is practiced, the ground beef patties should retain their INQ status. The nutrient profile of the ground beef patties is a marketplace quality issue. If the target market is interested in obtaining more nutritious foods in this firm's 183 restaurants, it is management's responsibility to respond with products that meet or exceed the market's expectations. Ultimately, the extent to which an organization provides nutritious food choices and nutrition information is dir- ectly influenced by the desires of their target market. The trends in the United States indicate an increased nutrition awareness. However, it cannot be assumed that this firm's target market strictly follows those trends. Marketing intelligence can provide information regarding how interested this firm's clientele is in Obtaining nutri- tious menu items. 5.6 Sensory Evaluations Sensory evaluations can be some of the most important QA/QC tools used to evaluate product quality. To be effec- tive, these evaluations must be based on the sensory guide- lines and specifications approved by management and con- ducted by trained personnel. Sensory evaluations should take place during all stages of product flow, from incoming raw material inspections through finished product prepara- tion and service in the restaurant. Sensory analysis can be an effective part of the corporate strategic quality plan if the organization has well-defined sensory quality stand- ards. These standards must be based on the needs and wants of the target market. The firm's sensory evaluation pro- gram should be examined on a regular basis to determine its benefit and effectiveness to both the organization and its target market. 184 5.61 Commissary Sensory Evaluations Incoming inspections of fresh and frozen beef repre— sent the necessary first step in controlling the-quality of the finished product. Sensory evaluations are one of the criterion for QA/QC commissary staff incoming product accept/ reject decisions. These inspections should focus on the product's odor and appearance. If the delivered beef has an off-odor, it is unacceptable. If the beef shows evi- dence of freezer burn or other unusual appearance, it is a likely candidate for rejection. The Objective of incoming product sensory evaluations is to minimize the likelihood that defective or nonconform- ing products will be processed for sale. In addition to product sensory tests, the supplier's delivery truck should also be checked for signs of contamination and infestation. These inspections can only occur on a regular basis if the receiving function is a planned and organized effort. Come missary QA/QC staff should be notified in advance of product delivery so the necessary inspections can be scheduled and performed. The sensory evaluations of incoming products will provide QA/QC personnel with information to be used to compare the product quality to the established specifica- tions. When a product is determined to be outside of these specifications, it is rejected and the supplier is informed of the reason. Sensory evaluations are an important part of the determination of in-process product quality as well. 185 Storage areas for raw materials and finished products should be checked daily for signs of product spoilage, unacceptable storage conditions, and contamination. Both trained produc- tion employees and supervisors can use their senses of sight, smell, and touch to evaluate the beef sensory quality during processing. These investigations must be based upon the specifications approved by management. These standards and specifications form the basis for the sensory evalua- tions by both employees and QA/QC staff members. The last chance to identify product nonconformance to standards before shipping to the restaurants is the finished product inspection. Finished product inspection should be based upon evaluations of the ground beef patty texture, color, odor, and taste. In-plant sensory panels, consisting of trained and selected employees, should conduct routine product evaluations. These routine taste panels will also provide an audit of the effectiveness of the incoming and in-process evaluations. These taste panels are not to be utilized to establish marketplace quality, as this can be determined only by the target market. The purpose of these taste panels is to examine the finished product in relation to the specifications established by management based on the target market's desires. 5.62 Restaurant Sensory Evaluations Incoming beef patties delivered to the restaurant should be examined by a trained and selected employee during the receiving inspection. Product sensory characteristics 186 of odor, appearance, and flavor should be used as the basis for accept/reject decisions. The trained and selected em- ployee should use established specifications to determine whether the ground beef patties are fit for preparation and service to the customers. In addition, a sensory evalua- tion of the delivery truck should be a regular part of the receiving routine. Products should also be monitored during storage to minimize losses due to spoilage and contamination. Before being cooked, the ground beef patties should be periodically evaluated for odor and appearance. Once prepared and as- sembled, a final product inspection must take place by both the cook and the service person to determine whether the product meets the established specifications. No product should be served to the customer that does not meet these management quality criteria. Periodically, restaurant personnel must be encouraged to taste all products served in the operation. These prod- uct tastings can be a regular part of the restaurant's emr ployee meetings. The objective of these product tastings is to familiarize the preparation and service personnel with the product so that they can intelligently provide information to customers during personal selling contaCts. In addition, these product tastings demonstrate management's interest in maintaining quality and employee involvement and interest. They provide the impetus for monitoring prod- uct quality in the restaurants. 187 The firm's clientele should be encouraged to make com- ments regarding the operation's food quality. These come ments must be communicated to management so that action can be taken if a problem is identified. Fundamental to the success of sensory evaluations of food products is the establishment by management of standards and the training of personnel to carry out the investigations. Management must realize that they cannot be in all places at all times to evaluate the product sensory status. Therefore, manage- ment must rely on the efforts of trained employees if the program is to be successful. The organization's management should recognize that the goal of product sensory evaluations is to provide infor- mation regarding the firm's quality efforts. Sensory evalu- ations of products should be an integral part of the oper- ation's strategic quality plan. The mission of any service organization is to satisfy the needs and wants of its tar- get market at a profit. Once these needs are determined and product specifications are established, sensory evalu- ations provide information regarding how well the organiza- tion is progressing toward satisfying these needs. Sensory evaluations, coupled with the other QA/QC tools described, are an essential part of the corporation's strategic quality plan geared toward achieving the firm's stated mission. 5.7 Product Recall Procedures The objective of establishing recall procedures is to have a specified action plan in the event that defective or 188 nonconforming products are shipped from the commissary. The recall plan establishes a strategy and specifies the procedures to be followed when it becomes necessary to re- call any products that are no longer under the control of the commissary. The plan will be activated whenever the situation dictates that a recall is essential. The goal is to have an established, well-planned system for handling recalls beforehand rather than reacting to situations in a pillar-to-post or firefighting style of management. 5.71 Statement of the Recall Plan The primary advantage to a well-developed recall plan' is that it permits management to be proactive rather than reactive. Recall plans are a strategy for anticipating problems before these problems surface. A statement of the organization's recall plan should appear in the corporate strategic quality plans. One individual in the organiza- tion should be designated as the corporate recall officer, and be primarily responsible for implementing the plan and coordinating all of the firm's resources necessary to suc- cessfully accomplish the recall. Once the recall is initi— ated, the firm's recall officer must advise the appropriate health officials regarding when the recall was started, the specific reasons for the recall, and the organization's re- call strategy. 5.72 Product Traceability Fundamental to the success of any recall is the capa- bility for identifying and tracing the distribution of the 189 product under recall. The system of tagging meat products at the time of receipt would begin this scheme of product traceability. A product tag should be developed that is capable of recording the following information: the prod— uct name, the supplier, the date received by the commissary, the processing date, and the date of receipt by the restau- rant. This tag would be affixed to all incoming meat items and remain with the item until the product is consumed in the restaurant. This tag would be checked and initialed at the time of commissary receipt, commissary processing, and restaurant receipt by the individual in charge of each operation. 5.73 Responsibilities of the Organization In addition to providing the recall plan and estab- lishing a system for product traceability, the firm's man- agement has other responsibilities related to product re- call. The appropriate health officials must be notified promptly when a product is being removed or a deficiency is being corrected, and provided with sufficient details. Under no circumstances should management be a party to either overt or covert cover-ups of defective products. Management also bears the responsibility of initiating a recall when requested to do so by the proper health author- ities. In addition, management is accountable for developing and adhering to its recall strategy and taking the necessary' action to guarantee that the recall is effective. Manage- ment is liable to notify all restaurant owners and managers 190 involved in the product recall. Product traceability again surfaces as the key component in a successful recall plan. I Management is also responsible for evaluating the circumstances that precipitated the recall and prescribing measures to prevent a recurrence. Beyond that, management must provide the health authorities involved with periodic progress reports regarding the status of the recall. When the recall has been completed, management should submit a report to the appropriate health officials, detailing the extent of effectiveness of the recall and the fate of the recalled products. It is management's responsibility to define, in writing, the specific functions of the QA/QC staff and facilities related to the recall procedure. 5.8 Quality Audits A quality survey or audit is a feedback tool to determine the effectiveness of the organization's efforts in meeting the strategic quality plan. The audit covers the product and the QA/QC system. The quality survey should be scheduled on a regular basis to provide information that will enable management to fine tune the system. Quality audits measure the extent to which management is effective and efficient. Special quality audits may be undertaken as a result of the surfacing of symptoms of a specific quality problem. Quality audits are similar to accounting audits in the sense that the objectivity of reporting is more likely to be achieved when the auditors are organizationally 191 independent of the area under investigation. Quality audits evaluate the product, inspection personnel, and the system for achieving and maintaining product quality. 5.81 Comprehensive Quality Audits A comprehensive quality audit entails obtaining in- formation from a number of sources. The needs and wants of the target market should be examined to determine the adequacy of corporate product specifications to meet these desires. The detailed, written purchase specifications are evaluated in terms of the supplier's ability to meet the specifications and the firm's ability to monitor whether or not these specifications are being followed. Manufac- turing specifications are investigated to decide whether they are in line with the organization's mission. Cus- tomer quality complaints are categorized to review the nature of these complaints and the adequacy of corrective action. The performance of all QA/QC personnel is also re- viewed. An investigation is undertaken to determine the adequacy of QA/QC equipment and facilities, testing, sampling and inspection procedures and decision-making processes. The audit also includes an evaluation of the estimates of quality costs and other relevent information provided to corporate management to review the organiza- tion's quality performance. In addition, the focus of the firm's quality program is investigated to ascertain whether the personnel involved are taking the necessary steps to 192 satisfy the quality desires of the target market. Comprehensive quality audits are time-consuming and they can be expensive. However, the investigation can cer- tainly be justified on the basis of cost-benefit analysis. Minimally, a management review of the comprehensive quality audit should focus on the "vital few" product quality char- acteristics. This Pareto approach to the quality audit procedure can involve a sampling inspection of the firm's products, inspection procedures, and system for achieving and maintaining product quality. 5.82 Special Quality Audits Special quality audits are required when a particular problem surfaces in the organization. For example, a spe- cial quality audit would be initiated if customer quality complaints increase dramatically. In foodservice, the out- standing example of an external failure is the customer com- plaint. The firm's customers can provide useful information regarding their perceptions of the corporation's emphasis on meeting their quality expectations. To be effective, a specific person in the organization should be in charge of monitoring and following up all customer complaints. All complaints shou1d be classified and indexed aCcording to the nature of the problem. This indexing will permit the customer complaint officer to analyze the data for trends in quality deviations. All customer complaints should be acknowledged promptly and properly evaluated. Corrective action should be a part of this complaint 193 procedure. The customer complaint officer should make a conscientious attempt to obtain information from the com- plainant regarding the facts of the case. The date of the incident, the product, the store location, and the time would all be relevant facts to determine. The store man- ager should also be contacted to obtain other information regarding the incident under investigation. After the complaint has been registered, corrective action is required. This corrective action might include an explanation to the complainant, a denial of liability, a product offered at no expense (e.g., a free meal or gift), and/or a monetary settlement. The nature of the corrective action is dictated by the type of complaint. The corporate customer complaint officer should be authorized to resolve the complaint to the customer's satisfaction, based on established policies and guidelines. When customer complaints surface in the individual restaurants, the restaurant manager should have available a similar set of policies and guidelines. Customer com- plaints brought to the attention of the restaurant manager should be dealt with at that level and rectified promptly and properly. All restaurant employees should be encour- aged to report customer complaints to the management of the individual unit. This action will minimize the extent to which the corporate customer complaint officer interferes with management's responsibilities in the restaurants. 194 The resolution of customer complaints should take a high priority in a foodservice firm's operating procedures. Since foodservice firms are service-oriented businesses, they live or die based on satisfaction of the needs of the target market. To remain viable and profitable, foodser— vice organizations should realize that the primary mission of the corporation is the fulfillment of their clientele's needs. Employees, as representatives of the corporation's strategic quality plan, must be aware of the significance of this mission. 5.9 Conclusions and Recommendations for Additional Research The thrust of this research was an analytical and comprehensive investigation of ground beef patty production in a commissary foodservice system. Several QA/QC tools were used to evaluate the effectiveness of this firm's total quality system. The HACCP procedure revealed defici- encies in the system and pointed the way toward corrective action. The costs of quality and the management responsi- bilities regarding QA/QC were discussed in a general sense. The Pareto analysis focused the QA/QC efforts on the "vital few" sensitive locations in the commissary meat production room. The ground beef patty weights were analyzed to deter- mine uniformity. A process capability study and analysis revealed the extent to which the patty weights conform to the corporation's established tolerances. Recommendations 195 were developed based on the information resulting from the ground beef patty weight investigations. Microbiological analyses of both incoming beef and finished ground beef patties determined the extent of prod- uct contamination. Recommendations to reduce the contamin- ationand monitor the product's bacterial load were pre- sented. The ground beef patty nutrient profile was studied to ascertain its contribution to daily nutritional needs. Commissary sensory evaluations were evaluated and recommenda- tions were made regarding the use of sensory taste panels and sensory analysis in both the commissary and restaurants. Suggestions were developed in regard to product re- call procedures. Guidelines for initiating a system for product traceability in both the commissary and restaurants were discussed. The topic of quality audits was amplified in relation to comprehensive and special quality surveys. A system for classifying and handling customer complaints was developed. The objective of this research was to provide the management of this commissary foodservice system with an independent study of their quality program. Several of these recommendations can be adapted to any foodservice system, regardless of size. The decision whether or not to incorporate these recommendations is, obviously, a decision that can be made only by the management of this foodservice system. The recommendations presented allow management to be proactive rather than reactive. 196 Management of any foodservice organization should be committed to satisfying the quality desires of the target market. Management must realize that a total corporate commitment to quality, value and service is necessary to attract new customers and repeat sales. A corporate strategic quality plan involves more than a clever market- ing slogan regarding statements about the firm's quality emphasis. The real problem with maintaining food safety and QA/QC programs is management, or the lack of it. Management must realize that predictability is the key to success. The primary responsibility of management is centered on the development of a quality product and image coupled with a strong identity and a solid, consis- tent marketing effort to increase market share. Those foodservice corporations that are the "shakers and movers" and are today on the lead, or cutting edge, of tomorrow recognize the value of employee motivation regarding quality. In the final analysis, the integrity of management and the quality of employees comprise the competitive edge leading to success in a foodservice operation. In business, it has been said that timing is every- thing and that time is money. Applied to a firm's QA/QC emphasis, it can be concluded that it takes time to save money. Management should spend its time in relation to the amount of money that it can save (cost avoidance) in each of the basic operating activities. However, it is not always possible to save money regarding the QA/QC program. , 197 A successful foodservice firm is supported through quality food, attention to detail by the organization's management and employees, and the timeliness of the services provided. Fundamentally, an emphasis on quality is a marketing ap- proach. If the target market's needs and desires can be satisfied at a profit, the foodservice organization is guaranteed success. Additional research regarding the quality of food prepared and served in foodservice systems is needed. In order to be effective, this research should not be purely empirical, but applied to the specific needs of the food- service industry. Suggestions for further research based on the conclusions of this study are: 1. An application of the QA/QC tools used in this study to other products produced within this foodservice system. An extrapolation of these research findings to other types of foodservice systems, espe- cially fast food organizations. Additional analysis of the nutritional and sensory attributes that govern the customer's choice of a particular foodservice operation or menu item. An application of the Pareto principle and analysis to other QA/QC problems associated with the foodservice industry, especially customer complaints. 198 5. Determination and analysis of the costs of quality in this foodservice system. REFERENCES Abrams, I. J. 1978. Determining consumer demand and market- ‘ing opportunities for nutritional products. Food Tech. 32(9): 79. Angelotti, R. 1975. FDA regulations promote quality assur- ance. Food Tech. 29(11): 60. Anonymous. 1978. Consumer study unveils emergence of new nutrition concepts. Food Prod. Dev. 12(7): 80. Anonymous. 1979a. Fast-food chains. Consumer Reports. 44: 508. Anonymous. 1979b. Sanitation and safety update. Restau- rant Business. 78(15): 125. Anonymous. 1980a. Commissary kitchens assailed by costly regulations. NRA Washington Report. 23(11): 2. Anonymous. 1980b. Despite problems, new NRA officers antic- ipate growth, prosperity. NRA News. 19(12): 3. Anonymous. 1980c. The market: The "400" posts real growth of 2.3 percent. Institutions. 87(2): 24. Anonymous. 1981. NRA predicts small but real growth for 1981. Restaurant and Institutions. 88(2): 8. ANSI/ASQC Standard A3-1978. American National Standards Institute, Inc., New York. American Society for Quality Control. Milwaukee, WI. Appledorf, H. 1974. Nutritional analysis of foods from fast-food chains. Food Tech. 28(4): 50. Appledorf, H. 1979. Nutritious menu design for restaurant operations. Food Tech. 33(3): 38. ASTM. 1951. Spec. Pub. lS-C. Quality control of materials. Philadelphia, PA. Avery, A. C. 1980. A modern guide to foodservice equipment. CBI Pub. Co. Boston, MA. ' 199 REFERENCES 200 Ayres, J. C. 1969. Practical control of salmonellae. J. Milk Food Technol. 32: 126. Bauman, H. E. 1974. The HACCP concept and microbiological hazard categories. Food Tech. 28(9): 30. Berry, B. W., and Ai-Ti Chen, A. 1976. Bacterial shelf- 1ife and consumer acceptance characteristics of chopped beef. J. Food Prot. 39: 405. Bianco, L. J. 1977. Guidelines for a dynamic quality con- trol program in a changing market. J. Food Prot. 40: 423. Bobeng, B. J., and David, B. D. 1977. HACCP models for quality control of entree production in foodservice systems. J. Food Prot. 40: 632. Bobeng, B. J., and David, B. D. 1978a. HACCP models for quality control of entree production in hospital foodservice systems. I. Development of hazard analysis critical con- trol point models. J. Amer. Dietet. Assoc. 73: 524. Bobeng, B. J., and David, B. D. 1978b. HACCP models for quality control of entree production in hospital foodservice systems. II. Quality assessment of beef loaves utilizing HACCP models. J. Amer. Dietet. Assoc. 73: 530. Bolaffi, A., Tinninghast, E. A., Hoyt, K. J., and Mallary, V. D. 1973. Quality assurance in a franchised food indus- try. Food Tech. 27(8): 24. Briskey, E. J. 1978. Management's view of quality assur- ance--aspirations and requirements. Food Tech. 32(10): 43. Bryan, F. L. 1968. What the sanitarian should know about staphylococci and salmonellae in non—dairy products. II. Salmonellae. J. Milk Food Technol. 31: 131. Bryan, F. L. 1978a. Factors that contribute to outbreaks of foodborne disease. J. Food Prot. 41: 816. Bryan, F. L. 1978b. Impact of foodborne diseases and methods of evaluating control programs. J. Environ. Health. 40: 315. Bryan, F. L. 1979. Prevention of foodborne diseases in foodservice establishments. J. Environ. Health. 41: 198. Bryan, F. L. 1980. Foodborne diseases in the United States associated with meat and poultry. J. Food Prot. 43: 140. Bryan, F. L. 1981. ,Hazard analysis of foodservice Opera- tions. Food Tech. 35(2): 78. 201 Bryan, F. L., Harvey, M., and Misup, M. C. 1981. Hazard analysis of party-pack foods prepared at a catering estab- lishment. J. Food Prot. 44: 118. Bryan, F. L., and McKinley, T. W. 1974. Prevention of foodborne illness by time-temperature control of thawing, cooking, chilling, and reheating turkeys in school lunch kitchens. J. Milk Food Technol. 37: 420. Bryan, F. L., and McKinley, T. W. 1979. Hazard analysis and control of roast beef preparation in foodservice estab- lishments. J. Food Prot. 42: 4. Bryan, F. L., and McKinley, T. W. 1980. Hazard analysis and control of roast beef jus preparation in foodservice establishments. J. Food Prot. 43: 512. Bryan, F. L., McKinley, T. W., and Mixon, B. 1971. Use of time-temperature evaluations in detecting the responsible vehicle and contributing factors of foodborne disease out- breaks. J. Milk Food Technol. 34: 576. Bryan, F. L., McNaught, K., and Blehm, K. 1980. Time- temperature survey at a restaurant that specializes in bar- becued food. J. Food Prot. 43: 595. Bryan, F. L., Seabolt, K. A., Peterson, R. W., and Roberts, L. M. 1978. Time-temperature observations of food and equipment in airline catering operations. J. Food Prot. 41: 80. Bryan, F. L., Smith, J. D., and McKinley, T. W. 1980. Hazard analysis of frozen dinners prepared at a catering establishment. J. Food Prot. 43: 608- Carl, K. E. 1975. Oregon's experience with microbiological standards for meat. J. Milk Food Technol. 38: 483. Center for Disease Control. 1977. Salmonella surveillance. CDC. Atlanta, GA. Center for Disease Control. 1978. Foodborne disease sur- veillance. CDC. Atlanta, GA. Center for Disease Control. 1980. Human salmonella iso- lates-~United States, 1979. Morbidity Mortality Weekly Rep. 29: 189. Chambers, J. V., Brechbill, D. 0., and Hill, D. A. 1976. A microbiological survey of raw ground beef in Ohio. J. Milk Food Technol. 39: 530. 202 Chem, L., and Lachance, P. A. 1974. An area of concern: The nutritive profile of fast-food meal combinations. Food Prod. Dev. 8(8): 40. Childers, A. B., Keahey, E. B., and Vincent, P. G. 1973. Sources of salmonellae contamination of meat following ap- proved livestock slaughtering procedures. II. J. Milk Food Technol. 36: 635. Chipley, J. R., and Cremer, M. L. 1980. Microbiological problems in the foodservice industry. Food Tech. 34(10): 59. Cichy, R. F. 1980. Nutrition--an emerging trend in food- service operations. The Consultant. 13(6): 21. Clausi, A. S. 1979. Revising the U.S. food safety policy: An industry viewpoint. Food Tech. 33(11): 65. Cohen, M. L., and Blake, P. A. 1977. TrendsiJ1sa1monellosis outbreaks: 1963-1975. J. Food Prot. 40: 798. Cordell, V. E. 1974. Charting a safeness course for the foodservice industry. J. Milk Food Technol. 37: 177. Cremer, M. L., and Chipley, J. R. 1977. Satellite food- service systems: Time and temperature and microbial and sensory quality of precooked frozen hamburger patties. J. Food Prot. 40: 603. Cremer, M. L., and Chipley, J. R. 1979. Time and tempera- ture, microbiological and sensory quality of meat loaf in a commissary foodservice system transporting heated food. J. Food Sci. 44: 317. Crespo, F. L., and Ockerman, H. W. 1977. Thermal destruc- tion of microorganisms in meat by microwave and conventional cooking. J. Food Prot. 40: 442. Cross, H. J., Nichols, J. B., and Kotula, A. W. 1980. Effect of grinding method on textural properties of cooked ground beef. J. Food Prot. 43: 555. Curtis, J. E., and Huskey, G. E. 1974. HACCP analysis in quality assurance. Food Prod. Dev. 8(3): 24. Dahl, C. A., and Matthews, M. E. 1980. Cook/chill food- service system with a microwave oven: Thiamin content in portions of beef loaf after microwave heating. J. Food Sci. 45: 608. 203 Dahl, C. A., Matthews, M. B., and Marth, E. H. 1978. Cook/chill foodservice systems: Microbiological quality of beef loaves at five process stages. J. Food Prot. 41: 788. . Darrah, R. M. 1974. A quality control program for the food industry. J. Milk Food Technol. 37: 42. Defigueiredo, M. P., and Splittstoesser, D. F., Eds. 1978. Food microbiology: Public health and Spoilage aspects. Avi Pub. Co., Inc. Westport, CN. Duitschaever, C. L., Arnott, D. R., and Bullock, D. H. 1973. Bacteriological quality of raw refrigerated ground beef. J. Milk Food Technol. 36: 375. Duitschaever, C. L., Bullock, D. H., and Arnott, D. R. 1977. Bacteriological evaluation of retail ground beef, frozen beef patties, and cooked hamburger. J. Food Prot. 40: 378. Emswiler, B. S., and Kotula, A. W. 1979. Bacteriological quality of ground beef prepared from hot and chilled beef carcasses. J. Food Prot. 42: 561. Enderwood, B. 1980. Fast food's nutritional potential. Restaurant Business. 79(5): 164. Engler, P. P., and Bowers, J. A. 1976. B-vitamin retention in meat during storage and preparation. J. Amer. Dietet. Assoc. 69: 253. . Erdman, J. W. 1979. Effect of preparation and service of food on nutrient value. Food Tech. 33(2): 38. Fennema, O. 1977. Loss of vitamins in fresh and frozen foods. Food Tech. 31(12): 32. Field, R. A., Smith, F. C., Deane, D. D., Thomas, G. M., and Kotula, A. W. 1977. Sources of variation at the retail level in bacteriological condition of ground beef. J. Food Prot. 40: 385. Food and Drug Administration. 1976. Bacteriological analy- tical manual for foods. Assoc. of Official Analytical Chemists. Washington, D.C. Foster, J. F., Fowler, J. L., and Ladiges, W. C. 1977. A bacteriological survey of raw ground beef. J. Food Prot. 40: 790. Foster, J. F., Guthertz, L. S., Hunderfund, R. C., and Fowler, J. L. 1978. Comparison of bacterial species iso- lated from ground beef, textured soy protein, and ground beef extended with textured soy protein. J. Food Prot. 41: 961. 204 Foster, E. M., and the Committee on Salmonella, National Academy of Sciences-~Nationa1 Research Council. 1970. An evaluation of the salmonella problem: summary and recom- mendations. J. Milk Food Technol. 33: 42. Fruin, J. T. 1978. Microbiological criteria for food. J. Food Prot. 41: 481. Gill, J. L. 1978. Design and analysis of experiments in the animal and medical sciences. Vol. 1. Iowa State Univ. Press. Ames, IA. Goodfellow, S. J., and Brown, W. L. 1978. Fate