A COMPARISON OF METHODS FOR MEASURING .

TENDERNESS 0F RAW RN'D 'CDOKED MEAT SAMPLES

TheSis for the flame cf M; S. _>
MICHIGAN 3m UNIVERSITY '~ " , ' J
BARBARA ANN BANKS ‘

‘ 1971

,_‘4

. u ... ""““““N"

L183, 212 y "‘”
AMichiga; .. tam
Ilivcrfity'

n .

   
 

gravy:

mm; In! I IMMWWWMWW p

3 1293 01002 7484

. EEP 2 6 I99:

.162?

 

ABSTRACT
A COMPARISON OF METHODS FOR MEASURING TENDERNESS
OF RAW AND COOKED MEAT SAMPLES

by Barbara Ann Banks

The performance of a probe-type tenderometer on raw beef and pork
was compared with that of the Warner-Bratzler shear, the ALLO-Kramer shear
press, and taste panel methods of assessing tenderness on cooked meat.

In addition to 18 young bulls used for preliminary work, 43 young bulls
and steers from a commercial feedlot and 45 lightweight hogs were
evaluated for tenderness and other carcass characteristics.

The tenderometer evaluation on raw beef was shown to be of signi-
ficant value in predicting cooked tenderness of the beef sample used in
this study (bulls and steers of similar maturity, weight and background).
For this group, the use of the tenderometer in combination with visual
scores for marbling and texture were found to account for approximately
64% of the variation in tenderness as measured by the Warner-Bratzler
shear. High degrees of marbling apparently increased resistance to the
tenderometer probe, indicating toughness, although maniling was other-
wise shown to be associated with tenderness. An adjustment in tendero-
meter readings to offset this effect would be recommended.

The Warner-Bratzler and ALLO-Kramer shear press measures were
highly correlated with each other and with sensory tenderness scores for
cooked samples from all groups. Generally, these mechanical measures
of the cooked sample demonstrated a higher association with sensory
tenderness than did the tenderometer.

The tenderometer was modified by removing four needles from the ten-

needle probe to permit its use on the smaller pork loin eye muscle. The

Barbara Ann Banks

modified device demonstrated a very poor ability to evaluate tenderness
on pork. Some observations possibly explaining this poor performance
were noted. The sensitivity of the tenderometer may have been altered
by the removal of four needles. Also, because of the "sinking" behavior
exhibited by softer, PSE-type muscles, tenderometer readings by appro-
priate procedures were difficult to attain.

A low but positive association was indicated between an increased
development of the PSE condition and increased tenderness by Warner-
Bratzler shear and taste panel evaluations. Pork tenderness was not
influenced by the cold carcass weight of the hogs used in this study.

An analysis of variance indicated that bulls had significantly
larger rib eye areas, less fat, less marbling, lower yield grades, a
darker color, and were less tender than the steers. A significantly
greater variability in the tenderness attribute was exhibited by the
bull group. The effects of various carcass traits on the tenderness of
the pooled beef sample were examined. The indicators of fatness, higher
yield grade and higher marbling scores, were significantly related to
increased tenderness. Larger rib eye areas and a darker muscle color
were associated with the less tender samples.

No significant differences in cross-sectional tenderness of the beef
longissimus dorsi were observed. Cores from three positions (lateral,
medial, and dorsal, nearest the backbone) were evaluated using the Warner-

Bratzler shear.

A COMPARISON OF MZTHODS FOR MEASURING TENDERNESS

OF RAW AND COOKED MEAT SAMPLES

BY

Barbara Ann Banks

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Food Science and Human Nutrition

1971

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The author wishes to express her appreciation to Dr. James F. Price
for his encouragement and guidance throughout the period of graduate
study. The efforts of Professor Lyman J. Bratzler and Dr. John W. Allen,
members of the examining committee, are appreciated.

Armour and Company is gratefully acknowledged for the donation of
an Armour Tenderometer to the Department of Food Science and Human
Nutrition, Michigan State University. The author expresses her thanks
to Dr. Leo J. Hansen, Armour and Company, for providing technical
information concerning the development and use of the tenderometer.

Mr. Paul Schurman and Mrs. Mildred E. Spooner are thanked for
their assistance with the collection of data for this study. The author
is grateful to Mrs. Beatrice Eichelberger for her efforts in the typing
and physical preparation of this manuscript. The author also acknow-
ledges the jovial support of the other Meat Laboratory graduate students
which helped to make this period of study a pleasant one.

Finally, the author wishes to express her appreciation to her
parents for their continued love and encouragement throughout this and

all of her endeavors.

ii

INTRODUCTION .

LITERATURE REVIEW

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Factors Affecting Muscle Tenderness .

Feasibility of Marketing Young Bulls

Methods of Assessing Muscle Tenderness

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

Pork . .

Young Bulls and Steers

Bulls Selected for Tendernessand Leanness

0

Statistical Methods .

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION .

Preliminary Work with

Pork Group

Beef Group

SUMMARY . .

LIST OF REFERENCES

APPENDICES,

0 I

O 'J O O O O

O O O O . 3

iii

0

Page

4)

ll

14

29

29

30

33

49

52

58

Table

10

11

LIST OF TABLES

Simple correlation coefficients between measures of
tenderness on young bulls selected for tenderness

and/or leanness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Simple correlation coefficients between measures of

tenderness on pork loin roasts. . . . . . . . .

Simple correlation coefficients between carcass traits

and measures of tenderness on pork loin roasts

Simple correlation coefficients between measures of

tenderness on beef rib roasts. . . . . . . . .

Simple correlation coefficients between measures of

tenderness on rib roasts from young bulls . . . . . .

Simple correlation coefficients between measures of

tenderness on rib roasts from young steers . .

Partial correlation coefficients between tenderometer
readings and Warner-Bratzler shear and taste panel
measures on beef when certain carcass traits are held

conStantO o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o 0

Analysis of variance of some carcass traits between

young bull and young steer groups . . . . . . . . . .

Simple correlation coefficients between carcass traits

and measures of tenderness on beef rib roasts .

Simple correlation coefficients between carcass
and measures of tenderness on young bulls . . .

Simple correlation coefficients between carcass
and measures of tenderness on young steers . .

iv

traits

traits

Page

29

30

32

34

36

37

40

41

43

45

46

LIST OF APPENDICES
Appendix

I Pork data . . . . . . . . . . . .
IIA Beef data (steers) . . . . . . . . . .
IIB Beef data (steers) . . . . . . . . . .
IIIA Beef data (bulls) . . . . . . . . . .
IIIB Beef data (bulls) . . . . . . . . . .
IV Bulls selected for tenderness and/or leanness

Page
58
61
64
66
69

71

INTRODUCTION

Tenderness is the chief criterion used by consumers in assessing
meat quality (Szczesniak and Torgeson, 1965). The literature is replete
with attempts to define and measure this very complex characteristic.
Because of consumer concern for tenderness, producers, packers and
retailers use the information from these studies to improve meat man-
agement practices. Producers use records of carcass tenderness to
guide animal selection according to breed, sex, age, ration and feedlot
treatment. Packers use U.S.D.A. grades and other carcass data to
determine the fate of individual carcasses. The need exists for a non-
destructive method of reliably predicting cooked meat tenderness from
raw meat measurements. A reliable evaluation of fresh meat tenderness
would permit better carcass differentiation into those suitable for
processing, those needing additional aging or tenderizing treatments,
and those ready for immediate consumption as fresh meat. As the ability
to assess carcass quality improves, the industry can offer the consumer
increased product standardization and quality assurance. In addition,
better control of carcass allocation could be realized to the advantage
of all -- producer to consumer.

This study was undertaken to compare the performance of a tendero-

meter* with other methods of evaluating tenderness of beef and pork.

 

*The Armour Tenderometer, probe type MTT serial number 62445, indicator
serial number 1002, used in this study was developed by Armour and
Company, Oak Brook, Illinois, and was donated to Michigan State Uni-
versity for research purposes.

The tenderometer was designed to distinguish between tender and tough
beef carcasses by a non-destructive method of assessing raw meat
tenderness in a packer's cooler, 24 hours postmortem. Both steers and
young bulls were evaluated for tenderness in an attempt to gain further
information concerning the effects of sex on the tenderness attribute.
Beef tenderness was evaluated using the tenderometer on the raw sample
and using the Warner-Bratzler shear, the ALLO-Kramer shear press and
hedonic evaluation by taste panel on the cooked sample. Shear force
readings were recorded for three locations across the beef longissimus
dorsi to investigate cross-sectional tenderness differences. Tests
were conducted to determine if tenderometer readings varied with differ-
ent operators.

An attempt was made to adapt the tenderometer for measuring ten-
derness of pork. Tenderometer readings on pork loin were compared
with other tenderness evaluations as measured by the above mentioned
methods. Development of the pale, soft and exudative (PSE) condition
in pork roasts was scored to determine the effects of this condition

on tenderness.

LITERATURE REVIEW

Extensive research has been devoted to the problem of tenderness
in meats. This quality has been identified as a critical factor in
determining consumer satisfaction of the product. Brady (1957) reviewed
studies of consumer preference of beef and reported most consumer dis-
satisfaction to be associated with lack of tenderness. Means and King
(1959) found tenderness of beef steaks highly correlated with overall
consumer satisfaction (r = 0.904). In his analysis of the characteris-
tics of beef desirability, Pearson (1966) suggests that although tender-
ness is critical to consumer acceptance, the range of acceptability may
be broad.

Relative to the quantity of research on tenderness with beef,
little consideration has been apportioned to the problems with pork.
Variations in tenderness between animals and between cuts of meat are
generally thought to be less for pork than for beef (Bratzler, 1971).

A decreased demand for lard and a growing preference for leaner pork
prompted the evolution of a leaner, meat type hog. Alterations in pork
carcass composition should be monitored to determine possible effects
on the components of palatability. Hendrix _£._l. (1963) reported some
consumer dissatisfaction with pork attributable to a lack of acceptable
tenderness. Tenderness and other palatability factors of pork have

been the subject of some recent investigations (Batcher g£_al., 1962;

Harrington and Pearson, 1962; Henry g£_al., 1963; Could g£_al., 1965).

To satisfy the consumer's wants and to remain competitive, those
in the industry must concern themselves with supplying meat products
of standard, acceptable tenderness. The research directed toward iden-
tifying the factors affecting tenderness, designing methods of measure
ing this property, and, more important, optimizing this quality in terms
of consumer preference reflects the meat industry's attempt to satisfy

consumer demand.

Factors Affecting Muscle Tenderness

Studies of muscle tenderness are confounded by the complex nature
of the tenderness sensation. Many factors have been shown to affect
muscle tenderness; however, the literature contains conflicting evidence
as to the degree of influence exerted by particular factors. The pre-
cise definition and measurement of tenderness remain elusive because
of the interactions and variables involved. Researchers have investi-
gated both antemortem and postmortem factors thought to affect muscle
tenderness.

Preslaughter factors such as feeding regimen, maturity, conforma-
tion or type, breeding, sex, enzyme injection, and stress have been
investigated to determine their effect on meat quality and tenderness.
In reviews by Szczesniak and Torgeson (1965) and Stringer (1970) the
question of diet appears unresolved. Of those studies reviewed by
Stringer (1970) low protein diets for hogs were associated with increased
marbling and tenderness. The review also indicated that hormonal in-

jections in hogs are not related to tenderness (Stringer, 1970).

Pearson's review (1966) of factors affecting beef eatability indicated
that tenderness is influenced by marbling over a wide range. Other
studies substantiate this supposition. Walter t l. (1965) and G011

._£._l- (1965) found tenderness to decrease with maturity (A, B, and F
maturity groups, as defined by U.S.D.A. grade standards, were analyzed.)
although differences between the A and B groups were not significant.
Romans _£._l- (1965) found no significant differences in tenderness (by
shear force) as maturity varied from A through D classifications although
more mature carcasses tended to have higher shear force values. Brei-
denstein__£l_l. (1968) reported significant differences in tenderness

(by shear force) between E maturity beef and both A and B maturity
groups. As noted in the previously mentioned studies, tenderness
differences between A and B maturity groups were not significant.
Likewise, Covington t l. (1970) found no significant tenderness differ-

ences between the A, AB, and B groups. Zinn _E _l. (1970) reported that
the interaction between time on feed and animal age influenced tender-
ness. The days on feed improved tenderness up to 180 days, at which
time, the authors suggested that the toughening effect associated with
age exerted a greater influence on this attribute.

Animal conformation or type is an unlikely indicator of tenderness.
In his discussion of beef desirability, Pearson (1966) reviewed work
relating beef conformation to tenderness. The data generally indicated

that this factor "...has little to do with tenderness although some

differences have been found between breed types." (Pearson, 1966). In

studies reviewed by Zinn (1964) hereditability of tenderness was re-
ported to be about 60%. Suess st 31. (1966) found semimembranosus
tenderness significantly affected by sire although longissimus dorsi
tenderness was not. Tenderness in pork has been reported to be moder-
ately hereditable (0.20 S h s .40) (Arganosa g£_alf, 1969; and Jensen
_£ _1. , 1967).

Sex is known to affect porcine and bovine tenderness especially
as the animal matures. Recent work comparing acceptability of young
bulls, steers, and heifers will be discussed later.

Treatments prior to slaughter also influence tenderness. A pro-
cess characterized by the pre-slaughter injection of an enzyme tender-
izer into the animal's vascular system has been patented and is in
current commercial use (U.S. Patent No. 3,052,551) (Bratzler, 1971).
The effect of antemortem stress upon tenderness and other quality
factors has been studied. Webb _£._1. (1964) reported that steaks
from non-stressed steers were significantly more tender than steaks
from stressed steers when evaluated early in the aging period. After
aging for 15 days, no significant difference in tenderness due to
stress was observed (Webb _£__1,, 1964). Antemortem stress has been
related to the pale, soft and exudative (PSE) condition, characterized
by rapid glycolysis and a low ultimate pH, and to the "dark cutter"
phenomenon, characterized by a high ultimate pH. Lewis _£.il° (1967)
showed the "dark cutter" reaction to be associated with increased ten-

derness in pork. Hedrick (1965) reviewed work on antemortem stress as

related to meat palatability and reported the dark cutter condition to

be associated with increased tenderness and the PSE condition with de-
creased tenderness. In work conducted at Michigan State University
(personal communication, Dr. R. A. Merkel, 1971), increased tenderness
was associated with increased severity of the PSE condition in pork.
The conflicting data may be due to differences between studies in
sample cooking methods or processing treatments; hence, the effects of
time and temperature on muscle tenderness may become influencing
factors. Bendall t l. (1962) reported that a low pH and a high

temperature cause the sarcoplasmic proteins to precipitate on the myo-

fibril, reducing the water holding capacity. Laakkone t al. (1970)
studied the effects of low temperature, long time cooking methods on
water holding capacity and tenderness of bovine muscle. They stated

"...the final temperature of the meat is extremely critical
in affecting tenderness and weight loss. If the temperature
is below the temperature at which collagen shrinks, the major
decrease in tenderness does not occur. If the temperature is
higher than the shrinkage temperature of collagen, the more
severe coagulation will cause a higher weight loss and more
tightly packed, less tender tissue will be formed. If the
meat is heated to the collagen shrinkage temperature, there
will be less weight loss, yet the major increase in tender-
ness will have occurred."

Paul _E._l- (1952) observed that muscle tenderness decreases with
the onset of rigor and increases with aging after rigor is complete.
The exact mechanism by which toughening occurs during rigor is not ex-
plained. Muscle shortening during rigor is thought to be related to

the degree of toughening (Pearson, 1971). Deatherage and Harsham (1947)

observed increases in beef tenderness with aging. Gould t al. (1965)

studied the effect of aging on pork tenderness. Tenderness (by shear
force) was found to increase as pork chops were aged from 2 to 12 days
after slaughter.

The relationship between connective tissue present in muscle and
its tenderness is controversial. Szczesniak and Torgeson (1965) re-
viewed the conflicting reports. Although still uncertain, increased
tenderness appears to be at least somewhat associated with decreased
quantities of connective tissue. The ratio of the collagen component
of connective tissue to the elastin component partially determines the
degree to which connective tissue influences tenderness. Collagen
converts to gelatin upon heating whereas elastin does not (Briskey and
Kauffman, 1971). Goll g£_al. (1964b) studied structural changes in the
connective tissue associated with animal age. These changes, asso-
ciated with decreased solubility of connective tissue as the animal
ages, also appear to influence the degree to which connective tissue
affects muscle tenderness (Goll gt al., 1964a, b; Cormier _£__1., 1971).

Intramuscular fat has long been associated with meat quality and
tenderness. Many investigators, however, have found the relationship
between marbling and tenderness to be non-significant or small. Harring-
ton and Pearson (1962) found marbling significantly correlated with
increased tenderness in pork. Marbling and tenderness in pork muscle
were reported to be positively correlated by Batcher and Dawson (1960);
however, in a later study (Batcher g£_§l,, 1962), marbling and tender-
ness were found to be related in only a few cases. Henry t al. (1963)

reported a small but significant correlation between marbling and

tenderness in pork muscle. Referring to studies of various researchers,
Bray (1966) suggested that a stronger relationship exists between
marbling and juiciness than between marbling and tenderness or flavor

of pork chops. In beef, there is considerable evidence indicating that
marbling and tenderness are not statistically related (Walter E£.£l°:
1965; G011 _£__1., 1965; Romans E£.§l-: 1965; and Breidenstein gt al.,
1968). McBee, Jr. and Wiles (1967) reported a positive linear relation-
ship between tenderness and marbling although the increases associated
with marbling, again, were found to be non-significant. In contrast to
these findings, Covington _£‘_1. (1970) reported that ”moderately"
marbled steaks were significantly more tender than steaks with a "small"
marbling score. Moody E£.él° (1970) studied the effect of marbling
texture on the palatability of beef rib. Beef with finer-textured
marbling was observed to be significantly more tender (by shear force)
than beef with coarser-textured marbling although this relationship was
not significant for sensory tenderness. This relationship was observed
earlier by Goll _£‘al. (1965) who reported increased tenderness in

samples with finer-textured and more evenly distributed marbling. Reddy

1. (1970) attempted to relate marbling distribution and vascular

g5
distribution to beef muscle tenderness. Contrary to the Goll _£‘al.
(1965) study, no significant relationship between marbling distribution
and tenderness was observed. Likewise, the number and distribution of

t al., 1970).

blood vessels appeared unrelated to tenderness (Reddy
Tenderness and postmortem muscle contraction state have been inves-

tigated. Locker (1960) suggested that decreased tenderness is associated

10

with contracted muscle. Similarly, Herring gt _1. (1965) reported that,
"when muscles shortened, there were corresponding decreases in sarcomere
length, increases in fiber diameter, and decreases in tenderness."
Later, Herring _£.a1. (1967) reported the relationship of tenderness
with fiber diameter to be linear and with sarcomere length, curvilinear.
Howard and Judge (1968) found shorter sarcomere lengths associated with
decreased tenderness but only in the medial position of the muscle.

In contrast to these studies, Covington _£._l° (1970) observed no sig-
nificant relationship between fiber diameter and tenderness in A, AB,
and B maturity group cattle. In work with beef strains selected for
tenderness and leanness, Field t al. (1970) found sarcomere length and

fiber diameter not significantly different between the "lean" or the
"tender" lines although fiber diameter tended to be larger in the "lean”
line. The "tender" line was significantly more tender, by panel and
Warner-Bratzler shear, than the "lean" line. Dikeman _£._l. (1971) re-
ported low and non-significant correlations between sarcomere length
and panel tenderness (r = 0.26) and shear force (r = -.30).

Conflicting data have been reported concerning protein solubility
and tenderness. Hegarty _£__l. (1963) found fibrillar protein solu-
bility and tenderness (by shear force and panel) to be highly and posi-
tively correlated. Dikeman _£1_1. (1971) reported data which indicated
the relationship between certain soluble protein fractions and tender-
ness was a negative one.

The type and amount of free amino acids present in muscle has been

associated with tenderness. Field and Chang (1969) reported an increase

11

in individual and total free amino acids with increasing tenderness in
beef muscle. The trend, however, was not significant.

Meat is not a homogeneous material. Tenderness is known to vary
between different muscles of the animal and within a particular muscle.
Weir (1953) reported that samples from either the posterior or anterior
regions of the longissimus dorsi in pork to be more tender than samples
from the central location. Alsmeyer _£__l, (1965a, b) assessed tender-
ness of the dorsal (nearest the backbone), medial and lateral positions
of the longissimus dorsi of pork and beef. In pork, samples from the
dorsal position were less tender than those from the medial or lateral
locations (Alsmeyer g£_a1., 1965a, b) whereas samples from the dorsal
location in beef muscle were more tender than those from the medial or
lateral positions (Alsmeyer g; al., 1965b). Similar findings with beef
were reported by Walter t 1. (1965), McBee, Jr. and Wiles (1967),

Hedrick t l. (1968) and Covington t l. (1970). In contrast, Romans

_£_§l. (1965) found no significant correlation between core position
and tenderness by shear force, and Howard and Judge (1968) reported the

lateral position to measure more tender than the medial (nearer the

backbone) position (by ALLO-Kramer shear).

Feasibility of Marketing Young Bulls

Retailers could better satisfy their consumer's wants and needs if
a reliable means were available for predicting the cooked meat tenderness
of the fresh meat products they market. Reliance on U.S.D.A. grades for

carcass quality information provides the retailer with an inadequate

12

index of individual carcass tenderness (Sperring gt 31., 1959). Work
by Cover _£‘_1. (1958) and Cover and Hostetler (1960) indicated that
the tenderness variation within grades accounts for the low correlation
between grade and tenderness. Alsmeyer _£__1. (1966) found beef ten-
derness to increase with carcass grade although grade accounted for only
6.9% of the variance in panel tenderness measures. Hinnergardt and
Tuomy (1970) discussed the need for a non-destructive measure of raw
meat tenderness which closely relates to cooked meat tenderness. Such
a measure incorporated into the present U.S.D.A. grading system would
make this evaluation more meaningful. Cover _£__l. (1958) discussed
the need for improved U.S.D.A. standards of carcass quality.

Bulls are graded by separate standards from heifers and steers
under the present U.S.D.A. grading system (U.S.D.A. SRAC&M99). There
is some discussion concerning the feasibility of including young bulls
in the steer and heifer grading category. The reluctance to revise the
standards for this purpose is based on the premise that bull beef is
of inferior palatability to steer and heifer beef. Some recent studies
have indicated that bull beef is not altogether unacceptable to consumers.
Field _£._l- (1964) reported lower consumer scores for bull steaks al-
though chuck roasts from bulls were rated higher than chuck roasts from
steers because of less intramuscular fat. Bailey gt a1. (1966) found
a small, consistent, but not always significant difference in the tender-
ness of bulls and steers, steer beef being the more tender. The effect

of age on tenderness of bulls and of steers and heifers was studied by

Field et a1. (1966). At 300 to 399 days, no significant differences

13

were noted. Bulls were slightly less tender (by shear force) than
steers or heifers when evaluated at the 400-499 age range. At 500-599
and 600-699 days, bulls were found to be significantly less tender
(P < .01) than steers or heifers of the same age (Field E£.§l°: 1966).
Hedrick _£‘_l. (1969) reported that tenderness scores were comparable
for bulls, steers, and heifers slaughtered at less than 16 months of
age. Steaks from older bulls (> 16 months of age), however, were ob-
served to be less tender than steers or heifers of similar age (Hedrick
._£._l., 1969). Champagne _£ _1. (1969) compared carcass characteristics
of bulls and steers which were castrated at four ages. Tenderness as
measured by shear and panel was not significantly different for bulls
or steers among all castration categories. Arthaud _£._l. (1969) found
steers to be more tender than bulls. In addition, bulls exhibited
significantly greater variations in tenderness than did steers (Arthaud
_£‘al., 1969). Similar results were reported by Reagan E£._l- (1971).
Steer carcasses produced steaks that were significantly more tender than
those from bull carcasses. Greater variability in palatability attributes
was noted in steaks from bull carcasses in this study also. If a better
means of separating the more tender bull carcasses from the less tender
were available, the results of these studies indicate that bull beef
would satisfactorily compare with beef from steers and heifers in pala-
tability characteristics.

From a production standpoint, the advantages of marketing bulls
rather than steers has long been observed. Field _£‘_1. (1964) reported

a faster daily gain, larger loin eyes per cwt of carcass, and an in-

creased percent in retail cuts from chuck, rib, loin, and round in young

l4

bulls than for young steers undergoing the same treatment. The cost

of castration is eliminated by marketing the intact male animal. In

addition,selection of young bulls for breeding stock could be postponed

until some demonstration of growth potential had been observed. Some

problems may be encountered due to the more agressive nature of bulls

such as increased feedlot injuries and greater damage to holding facilities.
If better avenues for marketing bull beef are to become accessible,

a reliable method of evaluating raw meat tenderness may be needed to

insure that only carcasses of a standard degree of tenderness are

selected for the fresh meat market. The success of researchers' endeavors

to develop a better means of evaluating tenderness could have important

economic implications for the future of the industry.

Methods of Assessing Muscle Tenderness

Numerous attempts to evaluate the tenderness attribute of muscle
are reported in the literature. Extensive reviews of methods for measur-
ing meat tenderness have been presented by Shultz (1957), Pearson (1963),
and Szczesniak and Torgeson (1965). The methods discussed in this review

are divided into non-mechanical and mechanical method categories.

Non-Mechanical Methods

 

Chemical and Histological Methods: The relative success of attempts
to relate various chemical and histological analyses of muscle to ten-
derness was discussed earlier (Factors Affecting Muscle Tenderness).

Free amino acid composition and quantity, protein solubility, water

15

holding capacity, sarcomere length, fiber diameter, and type and amount
of connective tissue are among those factors studied. Szczesniak and
Torgeson (1965) give a more complete review of the chemical and histo-

logical attempts to evaluate muscle tenderness.

Sensory Panels: Because of the similarities to the actual consumer

 

circumstance, sensory panels are often used to assess tenderness of
meat. Pearson (1963) discussed the use of large scale consumer panels,
small scale untrained panels, and trained panels for assessing tender-
ness. The triangle test was recommended for selection and training of
panelists. Sensory tenderness scoring methods generally recommended

were the hedonic scale and chew count methods.

Mechanical Methods

 

Pearson (1963) reviewed many of the mechanical methods developed

to assess tenderness.

Lehman's Device: In 1907, Lehman reported on two devices designed

 

for measuring tenderness. One instrument measured breaking strength
and the other measured shear force. The latter device functioned by

adding weights to a weighing pan until the shear severed the meat.

Warner-Bratzler Shear: The development of a shearing device for

 

measuring meat tenderness was reported by Warner in 1928. Black, Warner,
and Wilson, in 1931, tested the device using beef from different grades.
Since Bratzler modified and improved the device, in 1932, it has been

known as the Warner-Bratzler shear. Bratzler described the apparatus

16

as follows:
"The standardized, or revised, machine uses a shearing blade
0.04 inches in thickness. The opening in the blade is made
by circumscribing an equilateral triangle about a circle one
inch in diameter. The cutting or shearing edge of the open-
ing is rounded or dulled to the radius of a circle of 0.02
inch. As most of the machines are motor driven, a shearing
speed of 9 inches per minute is used. While the amount of
force necessary to shear the sample is recorded on a dead hand
spring dynamometer, I can see no reason why any similar
recording device in pounds cannot be used.’'
(Bratzler, 1949). Correlations between Warner-Bratzler shear force and
sensory scores generally fall between 0.60 to 0.85. Carpenter _£_al.
(1965) evaluated tenderness of raw meat using the Warner-Bratzler
shear, the denture tenderometer and the wedge tenderometer. Little
association was reported between sensory tenderness and any of these
methods using the raw sample. Since its development, the Warner-

Bratzler shear has been one of the most widely used objective methods

of evaluating meat tenderness.

The Cutting Gage: Tressler, Birdseye and Murray, in 1932, reported
on the development of a device measuring the pressure required to
puncture or cut meat. A blunt penetrating instrument was attached to
a Schrader tirepressure gage. A 3 x 3 x 1 inch sample of meat was used

for the puncture determinations.

The Penetrometer: Also in 1932, Tressler, Birdseye and Murray
tested a penetrometer device which they concluded to be more useful

than the cutting gage. A needle, 1 3/8 inches long, 0.15 inches in diameter,

l7

and rounded at the point to a radius of 0.07 inches, driven by a 225
gram weight, penetrated a meat sample for 15 seconds. The penetration
distance was recorded in millimeters on a dial. Penetrometer results

and sensory scores have not been closely related.

Child-Satorius Shear: In 1938, Satorius and Child used a shear

 

device, similar to the Warner-Bratzler instrument, to measure tender-
ness. Pounds of force were recorded as shearing bars were pulled across
a dull blade with a triangular opening through which the sample was

placed.

The Volodkevich Tenderness Device: The Volodkevich device, described

 

by Volodkevich in 1938, has been used extensively in Germany and other
European countries. The instrument consists of two metal wedges con-
taining artificial teeth, one wedge being stationary and the other
movable, and a chart device recording the continuous pressure on the
meat sample. The slope of the curve and the area under the curve have

been related to tenderness.

Winkler Device: Winkler, in 1939, worked with a device similar
to that of Volodkevich. Tenderness was related to the force expressed

as work per unit of sample.

Motorized Christel Texturemeter: This instrument described by

 

Miyada and Tappel in 1955 is a modification of the Christel Texturemeter.
Total work and maximum shear force were recorded as shearing prongs were
forced through a cylindrical sample of meat. This device has not been

widely used.

18

The Motorized Food Grinder: A motorized food grinder was also used

 

by Miyada and Tappel in 1955 to assess tenderness. Power consumption
in watts plotted as a function of time gave the total energy expended
for grinding the meat sample. Increased power consumption should be

associated with less tender meat.

Recording Strain-Gage Denture Tenderometer: In 1955 and 1956,

 

Proctor, Davison, Malecki, Welch and Brody attempted to simulate the

motions of chewing with this device. Two dentures, one stationary and
the other movable, were fastened to an articulator which simulated the
cheeks, lips, and tongue. The force of the vertical and lateral chew-

ing motions was recorded to give a force penetration diagram.

Kramer Shear Press: In 1951, Kramer, Amalid, Guyer and Rogers

 

reported the development of a shear press device used for measuring
tenderness. Using hydraulic pressure, a series of metal plates are
forcedthrough the sample held in a metal box. A force-time curve is
produced to determine maximum force and total work. The device has
undergone improvements and modifications since 1951. Replacing the
Standard Shear-Compression cell and shearing blades of an ALLO-Kramer
Shear-Press with penetrometer needles, Hinnergardt and Tuomy (1970)
obtained significant correlations between penetration force on the raw
meat sample and penetration force for the cooked sample and trained
panel tenderness scores. Good correlations between the shear press
and the Warner-Bratzler shear and panel tenderness scores have been
reported. This device has been widely used in studies for measuring

meat tenderness.

l9

Orifice Method: Sperring, Platt and Hiner in 1958 used a modified
Carver press to evaluate tenderness of meat. Pressure applied to a meat
sample placed in a cylinder causes the meat to extrude from an orifice.
The pressure at which the meat first appears through the orifice is

related to tenderness. The method has been reported to lack accuracy.

Slice Tenderness Evaluator: This device, described by Alsmeyer,
Kulwich and Hiner in 1962, produces a force-penetration curve by punct-
uring, then shearing off the sample slice of meat. Alsmeyer _£._1. (1966)

modified the instrument and reported that both the original model and

the modified model correlated significantly with panel tenderness.

The Armour Tenderometer: Hansen (personal communication, Dr. Leo
J. Hansen, 1970) developed a non-destructive probe-type tenderometer
suitable for assessing tenderness at 24 hours postmortem in a packer's
cooler. The device is described in the operating instructions by the
following:

"This instrument consists of a probe assembly and a read-out

box. The probe assembly contains ten penetration needles

mounted on a manifold which is in turn attached to an electronic

strain gauge. The probe assembly also contains a handle for

holding it, and an inverted U shaped member to serve as a pene-

tration stop indicator. The strain gauge on the probe assembly

is connected to the electronic read-out box by means of a cable."

During the developmental stages, different types of probes were
tested (shear blade, ball, needle and small blunt probes) using an Instron-

testing machine. The needle was found to give the best repeatability

with Warner-Bratzler scores for tenderness. Further testing revealed

20

that a 10 needle probe had the lowest standard error due to internal
differences in muscle tenderness.

To evaluate tenderness, the tenderometer is inserted into the rib-
eye muscle of carcasses chilled to 0°-4°C (32°-40°F) (generally 24 hours
postmortem). Below 0°C (32°F), ice crystals may cause readings to be
erroneously high. Above 4°C (40°F), intramuscular fat may not be com-
pletely solidified resulting in erroneously low readings. Care must
be taken to avoid penetration of the connective tissue sheath on the
muscle which would cause the reading to be high. The probe is held
perpendicular to the surface and pushed straight into the rib-eye muscle
until the needles have penetrated to a depth of two inches (when pene-
tration stops touch the surface of the muscle). Resistance to inser-
tion is indicated as pounds of force on the strain gauge recorder.
Research at Armour and earlier work at North Dakota State University
showed that tenderness of the longissimus dorsi muscle is indicative of
carcass tenderness. Beef carcasses are normally cut across the longiss-
imus dorsi at the 12th and 13th rib position, making a tenderometer
measure at this position optimal from the standpoint of practicality
and as an estimator of carcass tenderness.

Armour researchers reported a correlation of 0.56 between tendero-
meter carcass readings and Warner-Bratzler shear force on the cooked
sample and correlations of 0.77 (U.S.D.A. Choice grade beef) and 0.70
(U.S.D.A. Good grade beef) between tenderometer readings and panel ten-

derness scores.

21

The following scale is used commercially to interpret tenderometer
readings:
Choice Grade Beef < 18 pounds of resistance - moved directly to store
18 to 23 pounds of resistance - aged for 14 to 18 days
> 23 pounds of resistance - ground or otherwise processed.
Should this device prove a reliable measure of cooked tenderness
of carcass cuts, it should see broad commercial application and possible

use as a determinant of federal grades.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURES

The performance of the tenderometer (probe type serial number 62445,
indicator serial number 1002; Armour and Company, Oak Brook, Illinois)
was compared as an indicator of tenderness of beef and pork with the
Warner-Bratzler shear, the ALLO-Kramer shear-press, and taste panel
methods of measuring tenderness. The effect of the PSE (pale, soft and
exudative) condition on pork tenderness was studied. ‘Differences in beef
tenderness readings due to differences in tenderometer operator technique,
due to the sex of the animals (bulls and steers), and due to other car-
cass attributes were tested.

Data were collected from forty-five Michigan State University Ex-
periment Station hogs, twenty-three steers and twenty bulls from a
commercial feedlot, and eighteen bulls from a herd of cattle selectively
bred for tenderness and/or leanness over a period of twelve years at
Michigan State University. The hogs were of varying breeds, had been
fed the same ration, and were slaughtered at approximately 6 months of
age -- between 190 to 220 pounds live weight. The feedlot bulls and
steers were of similar background in age, breeding and feedlot treat-
ment. The bulls ranged from 15 to 24 months in age and the steers were
assumed to be of similar age although the exact ages for this group were
not known. The bulls selected for tenderness and/or leanness were
slaughtered at approximately 12 months of age. Separate experimental

procedures are presented for each of the animal groups. Measurements

22

23

on the raw carcass and on a cooked portion of the longissimus dorsi
muscle were collected to observe some of the factors affecting tender-

ness.
Pork

Cold carcass weight was recorded in pounds for each of the forty-
five hogs. A roast was taken from the right loin, beginning at the 10th
rib and measuring seven inches toward the posterior end of the loin.

The tenderometer was adapted for use on the smaller pork loin-eye muscle
by removing four needles, two from either end of the probe. Tendero-
meter readings (pounds of resistance) were taken on the 10th rib facing
of the roast and into the remaining loin (seven inches posterior to the
10th rib cut). Visual scores estimating the degree to which the roast
exhibited the PSE condition were recorded. Based on an appraisal of
marbling, color, and firmness, the roasts were ranked on a 0-15 point
scale (0-5, PSE; 6-10, Intermediate; 11-15, Normal). The roasts were
cooked in a 149°C (300°F) convection oven to an internal temperature of
74-75°C (165-167°F). The roasts were held overnight at refrigerator
temperature; the following morning, the longissimus dorsi was removed.
After trimming away the browned edges, the muscle was divided according

to the following scheme:
5/8" 1” slices

"T"1
l 2 13 4 --> LOIN END

1

   

BLADE END <--*

 

 

 

24

A 5/8 inch slice (*) was wrapped in foil, refrigerated, and later trimmed
to a weight of 30 grams and evaluated for tenderness using an ALLO-
Kramer shear press with standard shear compression cell and a TR-l Re-
corder (Food Technology Corporation). Two readings recorded as pounds
per gram were taken per sample. Three 1/2 inch diameter cores were
taken from the dorsal (nearest the backbone), medial, and lateral posi-
tion of chops 1 through 4 (see schematic). Using the Warner-Bratzler
shear, three readings in pounds of shear force were recorded for each
core. The sheared cores from each chop were wrapped in foil. Later,
30 gram, if possible, samples were weighed and subjected to evaluation
by ALLO-Kramer shear press. Again, two readings were taken per sample.
After core removal, the remaining portion of chops 1 through 4 were
divided into five samples for sensory tenderness evaluation. Twenty
untrained panelists scored the samples according to a 9-point hedonic

scale (9 = Extremely tender, 1 = Extremely tough).

Young Bulls and Steers

The following carcass measures were obtained in the packer's cooler
from steers approximately 56 hours postmortem and from bulls approxi-
mately 30 hours postmortem.

1. Cold and/or hot carcass weights in pounds.

2. Right and left rib eye areas in square inches.

3. External fat over the rib eye in inches (right side).

4. Estimate of Z kidney, heart and pelvic fat.

5. Tenderometer readings in pounds (two operators, testing alternate

left and right sides).

25

6. Maturity level estimates.

7. Marbling scores (12th-13th rib cut; to the nearest 1/3 of a division).

8. U.S.D.A. Grade (quality grade estimate - based on steer standards).

9. Texture of marbling scores (5 = very coarse, 3 = intermediate, 1 =
very fine).

10. Texture of lean scores (5 = very coarse, 3 = intermediate, 1 = very
fine).

11. Color scores (5 = dark, 3 = normal, 1 = pale).

Average rib eye areas, carcass yield grades, and the anlity grades for

bulls were calculated from measurements and scores of carcass character-

istics. Marbling scores, texture scores, and color scores were adjusted

to a 15-point numerical scale for analytical purposes.

Three-rib roasts (10, 11, 12th ribs) were removed from the right
sides and stored overnight in a cooler at the Meat Laboratory, Michigan
State University. Before trimming and wrapping for freezer storage,
additional tenderometer measures were obtained (again, at the 12-13th
surface by a third operator and at the 9-10th cut by one of the original
two operators). Marbling scores at the 9-10th rib cut were recorded.
After removal of the chine bone, the roasts were double bagged in cryovac
bags (the outer bag evacuated and clipped) and placed in a -7°C (-20°F)
blast freezer until they were to be prepared for further evaluation (over
a period of 2 to 14 weeks).

Tenderness of a cooked muscle was evaluated on the roasts after
freezer storage. The roasts were allowed to thaw three days at cooler

temperature (2-4°C, 36-40°F) before cooking in a convection oven at 149°C

26

(300°F) to an internal temperature of 66-68°C (151-154°F). Following
overnight refrigerator storage, the longissimus dorsi was removed and
the browned edges trimmed. The muscle was divided for analysis as shown

below:

 

l[2" 3/4" slices
r 1 v T

BLADE END <--'* l. 2 3 --> LOIN END

A 1/2 inch slice (*) was wrapped in foil and refrigerated. Later,
two 25 to 30 gram samples were obtained from this slice and evaluated
for tenderness using the ALLO-Kramer shear press in the manner described
for pork. Warner-Bratzler shear values were recorded by steak (1, 2 and
3) and by core position (dorsal, medial and lateral) within the rib eye
muscle. The 1/2" diameter sheared cores were saved for shear press
analysis as was done with pork.

The remaining portion of steaks l, 2 and 3 (after core removal) were
divided into seven samples each for presentation to a taste panel.
Twenty-one untrained panelists scored the samples for tenderness using

the 9~point hedonic scale described earlier.

Bulls Selected for Tenderness and Leanness

Preliminary work with the tenderometer was carried out on eighteen
young bulls slaughtered at the Meat Laboratory, Michigan State University.
These animals were being evaluated for tenderness and lean meat yield as

a part of a breeding improvement study (selection progress for tenderness

27

and leanness) being conducted by the Department of Animal Husbandry,
Michigan State University. Tenderometer readings were taken 48 hours
postmortem on the right and left sides at the 12-l3th rib cut by one
operator. Seven days later, two steaks were removed from the rib and
two additional tenderometer readings were taken by a second operator at
this position. Warner-Bratzler shear values and taste panel scores for
tenderness of steaks cooked in deep fat (138°C, 280°F) to an internal
temperature of 63°C (145°F) were obtained for comparison with tendero-

meter tenderness measures on these animals.

Statistical Methods

A major portion of the data analyses for this study was calculated
using Agricultural Experiment Station STAT routines programmed for the
CDC 3600 computer, Michigan State University Computer Laboratory. Basic
statistics including means, sums, sums of squared deviations from the
means, and simple correlations between all variables, were calculated
for all experimental groups using the MDSTAT (Basic statistics involving
missing data) routine. Calculations of partial correlation coefficients
(the association between two variables when the effect of another selected
variable is held constant) were made when it was felt that this analysis
would yield pertinent information. Partial correlation coefficients for
some of the data were hand calculated using the following formula from
Snedecor and Cochran (1967):

= r12 ‘ r13 r23

r
1203 2
/11 r132)(l r23 )

28

here . . . .
w r12°3 = partial correlation coeffic1ent

l and 2 components of the correlation coefficient being
tested

3 = parameter held constant

An analysis of variance was made of Warner-Bratzler shear values on
cores from three positions across the rib eye muscle (pooled data, bulls
and steers). This analysis was hand calculated using the procedure for
single classification analysis of variance as described by Sokol and
Rohlf (1969). The STAT routine; UNEQl, unequal frequency, single classi-
fication analysis of variance, was used to determine if differences
existed between the bull and steer groups in the measurements of the
various characteristics.

Pooled data from the young bulls and steers were subjected to least
squares analysis (STAT routine, LSDEL, least squares with automatic
stepwise deletion of variables from a least squares eqaation). A pre-
diction equation for Warner-Bratzler shear value was obtained from a
total of forty samples for which there was no missing data. The criterion
for deletion from the equation was the significance of the partial F
statistic. A partial F significance of .10 was specified as the require-

ment for deletion in this analysis.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Preliminary Work with the Tenderometer

Simple correlation coefficients between measures of tenderness on
eighteen bulls from a herd selectively bred for tenderness and/or lean-
ness are presented in Table 1. Data from this table indicate that the
tenderometer readings of the two operators (on two muscle portions, over
a seven day period) were significantly related to each other. Readings
taken on the 12-l3th rib cut (two days postmortem, operator 1) were more
closely associated with tenderness as measured by the Warner-Bratzler
and taste panel methods than were the alternate set of tenderometer
readings. Warner-Bratzler shear and taste panel scores for tenderness

Table 1. Simple correlation coefficients between measures of tenderness
on young bulls selected for tenderness and/or leanness.

 

 

 

 

Tenderometer Warner-
Operator 1 Operator 2 Bratzler
Left Right Left 1 Left 2 shear

 

Tenderometer
Left sidea, Operator 1
Right sidea, Operator 1 0.77**
Left side lb, Operator 2 0.64** 0.53*

Left side 2b, Operator 2 0.38 0.58* 0.67**
Warner-Bratzler shear 0.47* 0.53* 0.02 0.28
Taste panel -.50* -.50* -.03 -.28 -.76**

 

a12-13 rib cut, 2 days postmortem.

bTwo steaks removed, 9 days postmortem.
* P < .03

**P < .01

29

30

exhibited a close relationship (r = -.76**). Although the percentage of
the variance in shear force or panel scores associated with corresponding
variance in tenderometer readings (r2m .25) was not very high, the data
indicated that the tenderometer was of value in selecting for tenderness

of beef. Thus further study was indicated.

Pork Group
The modified 6-needle probe tenderometer was of questionable value

in predicting pork tenderness. The simple correlation coefficients be-
tween measures of tenderness, presented in Table 2, indicate that although
the tenderometer readings from two positions on the loin were highly re-
lated (r = 0.79**), no significant association was exhibited between

these readings and measures of tenderness on the cooked sample (Warner-
Bratzler shear, ALLO-Kramer shear press, and taste panel). The positive

Table 2. Simple correlation coefficients between measures of tenderness
on pork loin roasts.

 

-— -th-—_

 

 

 

 

__Tenderometer Warner- ALLO-Kramer
(10th (loin Bratzler shear_press
rib cut), end) shear__ (Slice)__(Cores)
Tenderometer
(on 10th rib cut)
(on loin end) 0.79**
Warner-Bratzler shear -.02 -.18
ALLO-Kramer shear press
(slice) -.10 -.15 0.73**
(cores) 0.00 -.11 0.85** 0.82**
Taste panel -.01 0.10 -.89** -.76** -.89**

 

31

relationship between the mechanical methods of measuring tenderness of
the cooked sample were highly significant (P < .01). The Warner-Bratzler
shear and the ALLO-Kramer shear press (on slices and cores) demonstrated
a close association with sensory tenderness evaluations (r = -.89**,
-.76** and -.89**, respectively). These data indicate that the use of
the Warner-Bratzler or ALLO-Kramer devices to measure tenderness of pork
loin roasts appears to be strongly justified especially where size of
available sample is small or taste panel evaluation is not feasible.

The lack of association between tenderometer scores for tenderness
on the raw pork sample and tenderness evaluations on the cooked sanple
could result in part from alterations of the tenderometer's sensitivity
due to needle number reduction. The developers of the device reported
optimum sensitivity with a 10-needle probe when measuring beef tender-
ness (personal communication, Dr. Leo J. Hansen. 1970). Because the
pork loin eye area is normally much smaller than the area of a beef rib
eye, four needles were removed from the probe, in this study, to allow
muscle penetration without interference from the surrounding bone or
connective tissue. This modification may have affected the tenderometer's
sensitivity to tenderness.

The severity of the PSE (pale, soft and exudative) condition of the
muscle may have influenced the tenderometer readings. While taking
tenderometer readings on the pork loins, it was noted that some "softer"
muscles were unable to maintain their normal shape, thus, in effect,
'sinking" into the bone/connective tissue sheath when held in the vertical

position for probing. An accurate measure on these softer muscles was

32

difficult to obtain. Sometimes the bone/connective tissue sheath "stopped"
the probe before the full two inch insertion into the sunken muscle could

" behavior could have affected certain

be obtained. Also, the "sinking
physical characteristics such as muscle density, contraction state,

fiber diameter, or sarcomere length. These changes might influence the
tenderometer's assessment of tenderness. An association between tender-
ness and contraction state, fiber diameter and sarcomere length has been
reported (Locker, 1960; Herring 33 al., 1955).

Data from Table 3 show that lower PSE scores (increased PSE severity)
were significantly associated with lower Warner-Bratzler shear values
(increased tenderness). The same tendency was shown with taste panel
scores although the association was not significant at the .05 level.

This relationship between tenderness (by shear and panel) and the PSE

Table 3. Simple correlation coefficients between carcass traits and
measures of tenderness on pork loin roasts.

 

 

 

 

 

Tenderometer Warner- ALLO-Kramer
Measures of (10th (loin Bratzler shear press Taste
tenderness rib cut) end) shear (Slice)__(§ores) Panel
PSE score -.28 -.38* 0.38* 0.15 0.09 -.30
Cold carcass weight -.10 —.11 0.06 0.08 0.07 0.00
**P < .01

condition agrees with work at Michigan State University (personal communi-
cation, Dr. R. A. Merkel, 1971). The opposite effect with PSE and ten-
derness was indicated by tenderometer data; however, the tenderometer

demonstrated a rather poor ability to measure pork tenderness in this

33

study. Because of the problems encountered when taking a tenderometer
reading on pork, the resulting evaluation of tenderness would be highly
questionable. The Warner-Bratzler, ALLO-Kramer and panel methods were
felt to be the more reliable ones for use on pork loin based on the
realtionships shown in Table 2.

When the effect of PSE score was held constant, the ability of the
tenderometer to predict Warner-Bratzler shear or taste panel tenderness
evaluations apparently improved slightly (partial correlation coefficients,
PSE score held constant) although changes in the magnitude of the corre-
lations were small.

It appears from these data that the PSE condition may influence
the accuracy of the tenderometer's evaluation of pork muscle tenderness
--probably due to the abnormal behavior of the muscle when held in the
vertical position for probing.

Cold carcass weight was not significantly associated with any of
the measures of tenderness. No relationship between this factor and
tenderness would be expected for these data since the hogs analyzed
fell into a narrow weight range (slaughtered between 190-220 lb; cold

carcass weight ranged from 124-193.4 lb, SD 11.3 lb).

Beef Group

The simple correlation coefficients presented in Table 4 show that
all tenderometer readings on beef were associated at the .01 level of
significance. Apparently, any differences due to using three operators

at two positions did not critically alter the tenderometer's ability to

Ho. V wee
mo. V m a

.EouuoEumoa mono: Nnumm mflmumfiflxouammn
.Emuuoeumom muse: omuom kaoumewxouammm

 

34

eom.n

«qm.o
mm.o

«o¢.o

«ram.u Hosea wume
«eme.o Ameeouv
eeme.o Ameeeomv

mmmua ummsm onmuMuoaq<
eeam.o ummfim pmauumumuuocumz

«eoe.o Am eoueeeeo sees oH-mv

eeee.o Am seeeeeeo nee“ mH-NHv

«aca.o Am eoueeeao mess MH-~HV

AH seeeueeo wees mH-NHv
Hmumefioumfifimhr

 

aw noumummo

mm neumummo mm neumuumo

 

 

mmoum ummzw
umamumuoqq<

new oHum

ma neumumao

 

nan MHINH

 

umumEoumwcmH

 

new mama so mmmcumucou mo monomwme cmozuon mesmwowmwmoo cowumampuoo mHmem .q mHLmH

35

estimate tenderness. Generally, tenderometer readings were significantly
associated with the mechanical and subjective measures of tenderness on
the cooked beef sample. Correlation coefficients between tenderometer
measures and the Warner-Bratzler shear ranged from 0.40* to 0.54**.
Correlation coefficients between ALLO-Kramer shear press readings and
tenderometer readings ranged from 0.27 to 0.48**. The type of sample
(slices or cores) used for ALLO-Kramer shear press analysis apparently
had little effect on the device's estimate of tenderness. The tendero-
meter and taste panel methods correlated over a range of -.36* to -.6l**.
It appears that for the beef group studied (young bulls and steers of
similar background) the tenderometer exhibited some predictive value

for tenderness determinations.

As was noted in the pork study, the mechanical measures on the cooked
sample were highly correlated (Warner-Bratzler shear vs ALLO-Kramer shear
press; slices and cores r = 0.91** and 0.93**, respectively). These
mechanical measures were highly successful in predicting taste panel
tenderness (r = -.89**, -.93**, -.87** for Warner-Bratzler shear, ALLO-
Kramer shear press slices and cores, respectively). As indicated by
these data, mechanically obtained values of shear resistance on cooked
muscle were generally better criteria for assessing tenderness than
tenderometer readings on raw muscle.

Tables 5 and 6 contain the simple correlation coefficients between
the measures of tenderness when the beef group was divided into bull and

steer categories. A significant association between the raw sample

36

Ho. V mhs

mo. v m «

.mH u a .Hmcma use mummzm m> umuoEouwvcmHH
.Emuuoeumoe mason Nmumm meumswxouadmb
.Eouuoaumoa muse: omuom %HmuMwaoumamm

 

 

 

 

 

 

#«Nm.u seem.u «*ww.a so.o om.n smq.u exam.n Hound mummy
eeew.o «som.o No.0 mm.o me.o eewm.o Ameeoev
exem.o ae.- NN.o em.o eee.o Ameeeeev
mmwum ummsm umEmuMuoqq<
Ho.o om.o N¢.o «swm.o umocm uoHNumumuumcme
mm.o mm.o «emm.o Am h5.2.38 eeee OH-mV
No.0 Ne.o Am ecumeeeo new“ mH-~HV
«Hm.o Am eoueeeeo meme mo-~av
AH eoeeeeeo wees mH-NHV
umuefionmucma
AmmHOOV mmwowamv ummsm mm HOumuwmo om woumuomo mm MOumuomo ma neuwuomo
mmoum pause numanumum new oHum nHu MHnNH
umamuxuoqq< uumcumz umomEoumeamH

 

kudosu Scum

H.mHHon wave»

muwmou own so mmocwmmeu mo mmuommma awesome mucmwowmmmOo :Owumamuuoo onEHm .m maan

37

Ho. V mse
mo. V m «

.mm I c memes coHomeQ ofiu mHaNH ecu um N m> H mucumpwao .wmumEoumbcmu unmoxm chmHumano Ham pom om H CH

.Emuuoeumoa meson Nmumm %Hmumewxoueame
.Emuuoeomom mono: omuom hawumeflxoumamm

 

ewq.u ««w©.n

seoo.o

Hm.u no.0 «Hm.u ma.u wo.u Hosea momma
«es0.0 00.- 00.0 00.- AN.- Aeeeoev
«00.0 0N.- e0.0 00.- eo.- Ameuemmv
mmoua ummnm umEmuMuoqq<

mo.u mo.o wH.o No.0 ummsm omfimomumupmcumz

.0m.0 «ee.0 eme.0 Am eoeeeeeo eeee 0H-00

eeme.0 eee0.0 A0 peeeeeeo eeee 0H-NHO

«ems.0 Am eoeeeeeo wees 0H-NHV

Am ecueeeeo ween 0H-NH0
uwuoEoum©CmH

 

H

ammuoov AmmuwawV
wmmumlnmmnm

umfimuMnOAA<

.muomum mono» Boom

umoew .quODmummo om ocumwwmo mm ocumummo ma ocumummo
numauumwm new canm new mHuNH
numaum3 wmumEoumbcmH

mummou awn co mmooumbcmu mo mouommma awesome mucmflummwmoo coHumHoupoo mHQEflm .o oHan

38

tenderometer readings (comparing operators and locations) on steers was
observed whereas this relationship was generally not significant for
measures on the bull category. Between raw sample measures and cooked
sample measures, correlations were generally very low for the steer
category. Raw measures at the 12-13 rib position (30-56 hours postmor-
tem) and cooked sample measures on the bulls were related to a degree
that was significant or approached significance. The relationship be-
tween mechanical methods on the cooked sample and between these measures
and the subjective analysis was generally significant for both the bull
and steer categories; however, it is interesting to note that the corre-
lations tended to be higher for the bulls than for the steers (bulls,
between mechanical measures, r = -.86** to -.90** and between mechanical
and subjective measures, r = -.82** to -.90**; steers, between mechani-
cal measures, r = 0.53* to 0.67** and between mechanical and subjective
measures, r = -.31 to -.68**). These differences between simple corre-
lation coefficients for bulls and for steers would be somewhat indicative
of the greater variability in tenderness of the bull sample. Variance
in tenderness; by Warner-Bratzler, ALLO-Kramer and panel methods; was
greater in the bull group. It would be expected then that correlations
between the different methods of measuring tenderness would improve
with greater sample variation.

The influence of various carcass characteristics on the ability of
the tenderometer to predict tenderness was examined. Partial correla-
tion coefficients were calculated to reveal changes in the magnitude of

correlations between the tenderometer and the Warner-Bratzler shear and

39

taste panel evaluations of tenderness when the effect of some carcass
trait was held constant. These data are shown in Table 7.

Hot carcass weight apparently had little or no influence on tender-
ometer measures. Since the animals used in this study fell into a
rather narrow weight range (500-726 lb, SD 57.6 lb), this parameter
would not be expected to influence tenderness to any great degree.
Likewise, little change in the tenderometer vs Warner-Bratzler or taste
panel measures was noted when marbling scores at the 10th rib cut,
texture of the lean, or color scores were held constant. Removing the
effects of marbling, at the 12-13 rib cut, and of marbling texture
appear to slightly enhance the tenderometer's predictability for tender-
ness. This type of effect was reasonable since higher degrees of
marbling apparently tend to increase tenderometer readings (indicating
toughness) although marbling was shown in this study to be associated
with increased tenderness.

To determine if the bull and steer groups differed in tenderness
and other carcass characteristics an analysis of variance of the bull
and steer data was calculated. The means, standard deviations and
significance of the variance are presented in Table 8. From these data
it appears that the two groups did not differ significantly in hot
carcass weights or texture parameters (of marbling and of lean). All
other carcass measures analyzed were significantly different for the

two groups. The means indicated that the bulls had larger rib eye areas,

40

.Ewuonumom muse: Nmumm .uoo nHu oHum .

.EmuuoEumom mono: omuom .uoo nHu mHuNH .

Ho. V Are
mo. V m e
“cumummo .e

ocumuomo .N

N

.Eouuoaumoa mono: NnuNm .uoo nHu mHINH .m u0umummo .m
N
H

.EouuoEuwoa mono: omuom .uoo nHu MHnNH .

mm.u smm.u soq.u som.n eemq.u NH.- q~.: som.u
*swm.n esoo.u «soo.u eemm.u seam.n ssm¢.u «amm.u eeoo.u
stm.n ekwm.a ream.n *emm.u seoo.u semq.n «em¢.u ream.u
eemm.u «eon.u «smm.u «eoq.n esmo.n emm.n ««n¢.u seem.u

ocumummo .Hm

som.u q
eeHo.n m
seem.n N
eeHm.u H

mcoHuHm0d\u0umuomo woumEoummeu m> Hosea mummH

«mm.o soq.o semq.o eo¢.o «amq.o qH.o mm.o «oq.o
«som.o «eon.o akoo.o *«oq.o esm¢.o «om.o «om.o xxmm.o
*emq.o eeoq.o eemm.o sewq.o semo.o «o¢.o «qu.o «eom.o
seem.o «kmm.o «swm.o ««m¢.o «emm.o «nm.o ««n¢.o «emq.o

ecoHuHmom\u0umuwmo umquoumwcou m>

«o¢.o q
seem.o m
ean.o N
eeHm.o H

Hmwfim HOHNumHmIHmGHNB

 

 

 

uoHoo cmmH wcHHnumE. use nHu uoo nHu mbmum meow. umwme ucmHonwmoU
no mo oHum MHnNH bHon mmm nHm mmmoumo aoHumHoMHOU
wuouwa wcHHnomz uom mHQEHm

 

uCNuwCOU @Hwfi muHmHu mmmUHmU

 

.ucmumaoU wHon mum muHmuu mmmonma :Hmuuoo cocz moon do monommofi Hosea momma mom
ummzm umHnumumnumcumz use mwcmewu noumaouovcmu dom3uon mucmHonwmoo ooHumHouuoo HmHuumm .m oHan

Table 8.

and young steers.

41

Analysis of variance of some carcass traits between young bulls

 

 

 

 

Significance

Bullsa Steersb * P < .05

Means (SD) Means (SD) ** P < .01
1. Hot carcass weight 614.0 (59.7) 610.4 (57.0) N.S.
2. Rib eye area 13.78 (1.20) 11.83 (0.63) **
3. External fat over rib eye .31 (0.14) .63 (0.14) **
4. Kidney, heart, pelvic fat 2.52 (0.34) 3.53 (0.37) **
5. Yield grade 1.74 (0.55) 3.30 (0.52) **
6. Marbling (12-13 rib cut) 11.9 (3.6) 17.6 (4.0) **

7. (9-10 rib cut) 9.9 (4.4) 15.4 (2.1) *
8. Texture (of marbling) 8.2 (1.8) 8.7 (2.0) N.S.
9. (of lean) 7.8 (1.6) 7.9 (1.5) N.S.
10. Color 9.9 (1.6) 7.9 (1.4) **
Tenderometer readingsC
ll. 1 21.52 (2.99) 18.46 (3.15) **
12. 2 20.15 (2.52) 17.76 (2.53) **
l3. 3 19.60 (3.02) 16.12 (2.78) **
l4. 4 16.35 (2.00) 13.82 (1.76) **
15. Warner-Bratzler shear 8.61 (1.41) 6.19 (0.61) **
ALLO-Kramer shear press

16. (slices) 60.42 (12.98) 41.78 (5.75) **
17. (cores) 62.65 (13.89) 44.63 (5.29) **
18- Taste panel 5.62 (1.10) 7.31 (0.57) **

 

aAll measures on bulls, n =

20.

bOn steers, n = 23 for measures 1-6 and 8-12 and n = 20 for measures 7 and

13-180
Cl. Operator
2. Operator
3.

4. Operator

, 12-13 rib cut, 30-56 hours postmortem.
12-13 rib cut, 30-56 hours postmortem.

1
2.

Operator 3, 12-13 rib cut, 52-72 hours postmortem.
2.

9-10 rib cut, 52-72 hours postmortem.

42

less fat, a lower yield grade, less marbling, were of darker color and
were less tender than the steers. A greater variation in tenderness
was noted within the bull group, significant at the .01 level, than was
found in the steer group. The two groups differed in U.S.D.A. grade

assignment as follows:

Prime Choice Good Standard
Bulls 0 5 l3 2
Steers 2 18 3 0 0,

Maturity scores and U.S.D.A. grades were not included in the ten-
derness analysis. Maturity scores were essentially the same for the
entire beef group and should have exerted no significant influence on
the tenderness attribute. The U.S.D.A. grades were assigned to the
nearest one-third of a grade based on subjective evaluations of marbling,
maturity and conformation. The influence of marbling was included in
the analysis; as stated, the samples varied little in maturity ratings.
Conformation is reported to have little association with tenderness
(Pearson, 1956). Although the somewhat arbitrarily assigned grades were
deleted from the computational data, it was felt that the components of
the U.S.D.A. grade that were pertinent to tenderness (or that were held
constant) were included in the analysis.

The effect of various carcass characteristics on the tenderness
attribute in beef were studied. Simple correlation coefficients between
tenderness measures and various carcass traits are presented in Table 9.

As would be expected because of the rather narrow range of carcass weight

of the beef samples, hot carcass weight exhibited little association with

43

 

"1
-4

Ho. V mes
mo. v m 0
.m0 u a 00033
coHuHmom nHu mH-NH ecu um N use H woumuwmo Homoeoumwamu :uH3 mwosu unmoxm mGOmHuquoo HHm pom oq H CH
.Ewuuoaumom mason NmuNm uHmumEonuaamn
.Emuuoeumom mono: om-om hHmumEonuammw

 

 

 

 

000.- 00.- 00.0 0000.0 0000.0 «000.0 000.- 00.0 0000a 00000
eeee.0 00.- 00.- «000.- eee0.- «000.- «000.0 00.- Ameeouv
000.0 00.0 00.- «e00.- «000.- 0000.- 000.0 00.- H.000000
mmmoauwmmzw umBmuM-OHHm
«¥m¢.o NH.n qN.u «eqo.u eeNo.u eemo.u e¥m¢.o mH.u wmmnm umHNumumnpmdumz
00.0 00.- 00.0 00.- 00.- «000.- 000e.0 00.- x0 00000000 0000 00-00
00.0 00.0 00.0 «00.- 00.- «000.- 00.0 00.- H0 00000000 0000 00-000
mo.o mo.u mH.o 0H4: No.o wN.- 0N.o mo.o AN ecumuoao mnHu mH-NHV
No.0 mo.o mH.o wN.- mo.- 0mm.u MN.o NH.- AH ocumummo mnHu MH-NHV
umuufioumecwH
uoHov cmmH wwwHoumS use nHu uou nHu mbmum mmum uanm3
m0 m0 oH-m mH-NH meHW 000 nHm mmMupMo
ououme memeumz Dom

 

.mummou can
H .
moon co mmocumwcmu mo monommma bow muHmuu mmmoomo cmmBumn mueoHonmooo onumHmuuoo mHQEHm .m mHomH

44

the tenderness attribute; no correlations were significant. As measured
on the cooked beef sample, tenderness was significantly associated with
smaller rib eye areas. The correlations with raw meat measures (tender-
ometer) were lower and generally not significant. The calculated yield
grade factor generally exhibited a highly significant negative associa-
tion with tenderness of beef. Marbling scores at both positions were
generally not significantly correlated with the tenderometer's estimate
of tenderness but highly significantly related to tenderness by all
measures of this attribute on the cooked sample. These data indicate
that both animal fatness, as indicated by yield grade, and intramuscular
fat are positively associated with tenderness.

It is interesting to note that when analyzed by groups, increased
marbling was associated with increased tenderometer readings, (decreased
tenderness) although the opposite effect was indicated by the other
measures of steer group tenderness. (See Table 11). This contradiction
was not observed for the bull group (Table 10). To further investigate
those relationships, partial correlation coefficients (by group) between
the tenderometer measure and the Warner-Bratzler shear measure, marbling
held constant, were calculated. It appeared that most of the change in
tenderometer and Warner-Bratzler shear correlations attributable to
marbling effects arose from the steer data where the degree of marbling
was of significantly greater magnitude. As previously noted, this was
a reasonable or expected effect of marbling on tenderometer values.

Therefore, adjustment for marbling in the selection of tender carcasses

45

mo. V m«
oON " CH
.Eouuoeumom 00:0: NmaNm hkumEonummmn
.Emuuosumoa meson omnom mHmumEonummmm

 

 

 

00.- 00.- 00.0 000.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 0000.0 00000
00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00,- 00.- 0000000
00.0 00.0 00.- 000.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00000000
00000 00050 museum-Oqu
00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00000 00000000-000002
00.0 00.- 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00 00000000 0000 00-00
00.0 00.- 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 000.- 00.- 00 00000000 0000 00-000
00.- 00.- 00.0 00.- 00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00 00000000 0000 00-000
00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 000.- 00 00000000 0000 00-000
umumfioumwcoH
uoHoo ome mcHHeumE 030 £00 030 £00 meme «mum umwwma
00 00 00-0 00-00 00000 000 000 0000000
muoume wdHHnumz 00m

 

H.mHHon mono»
co mmmdumwawu mo monommma cam muHmuu mmmuumU ammzumn muaoHonmooo coHumHouuoo oHQEHm .OH oHan

46

00000000 000 00-00 000

00 N cum 0 00000000 000m80000500 £003 000:0 unmoxm 0:00000@Eoo 000 now om n a
.EmuuoEumom wunos Nm-Nm kflmumewxoumam
.Emuuofiumom muses omuom mamumswxouaam

00. V m00

mo. V m 0
.mm 0 a 00053

Maw-4

 

 

 

00.0 00.- 00.0 00.0 000.0 00.0 00.- 00.- 00000 00000
00.- 00.- 00.- 0000.- 0000.- 000.- 00.0 00.- 0000000
00.- 00.0 00.- 000.- 000.- 00.- 00.0 00.0 00000000
00000 00030 umfiduM-0004
00.0 00.- 00.- 00.- 00.- 0000.- 00.- 00.- 00000 00000000-000000
00.- 00.0 00.0 0000.0 0000.0 00.- 0000.0 00.0 00 00000000 0000 00-00
000.- 00.0 0000.0 00.0 00.0 00.- 00.0 000.0 00 00000000 0000 00-000
000.- 00.0 00.0 000.0 0000.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00 00000000 0000 00-000
000.- 00.0 0000.0 0000.0 0000.0 00.0 00.0 00.0 00 00000000 0000 00-000
Hmumfioumwfimnfi
00000 c000 -wm00num5 050 £00 050 £00 mvaw- mmum ufiwww3
00 00 00-0 00-00 00000 000 000 0000000
musuxma .mawanumz 00m

 

0.000000 made»

so mmmcumwcwu mo 00050008 wcm 000000 0000000 $003009 mucmwofiwmmoo mafiumHmMMOQ maafifim .HH MHLMH

47

by tenderometer is strongly indicated. By removing yield grade and rib
eye area, slight reductions in the tenderometer's predictiveness were
observed. An explanation for this effect (if real) was not apparent.
It should be noted thattunuzof the carcass traits presented in Table 7
appear to exert any great degree of influence on the performance of the
tenderometer.

Low, non-significant correlations between the texture measures (of
marbling and of lean) and tenderness were observed (Table 9). Also from
Table 9, it appears that a darker color (higher color score) was asso-
ciated with decreased tenderness as indicated by the Warner-Bratzler
shear (higher shear force) and by taste panel (lower hedonic rating)o
This relationship is consistent with data from Table 8 which indicated
that the darker colored muscle from bulls was also less tender than the
samples from the steer group. The reason for the differences in color
was not apparent.

To test for tenderness differences within the longissimus dorsi, an
analysis of variance in tenderness of cores from three positions across
the longissimus was calculated. It appeared from the analysis that, in
this study, no differences in tenderness (by Warner-Bratzler shear) were
exhibited due to core position within the muscle. Lateral, medial, and
dorsal positions were tested (dorsal being nearest the backbone).

A prediction equation for tenderness by Warner-Bratzler shear was
obtained by a least squares analysis (deletion,I‘as .10). Of the var-
iables tested, those deleted from the equation were (in order of deletion)

rib eye area, percent kidney, heart and pelvic fat, hot carcass weight,

48

color, external fat, and tenderometer score (13th rib, operator 2). The
remaining variables (texture of the lean, marbling and tenderometer
scores at the 13th rib) are presented in the prediction equation:

Warner-Bratzler shear force = 7.62 - [(-.20)(marbling score) +

(-.22)(texture of lean) + (0.23)
(tenderometer)]

For a narrow range of size, hot carcass weight and maturity, marbl-
ing and tenderometer scores at the 13th rib and texture of the lean -J
appear to be useful for predicting Warner-Bratzler shear measures of
tenderness on beef. The multiple correlation coefficient for this
equation indicated that approximately 64% (R2 = .64) of the variation
in Warner-Bratzler shear force could be predicted by the combination of
carcass evaluations shown in the above equation.

The standard partial regression coefficients (b' or beta weights)
for parameters in this equation indicated that marbling and tenderometer
scores at the 13th rib were the most important parameters (b' = -.60
and 0.48, respectively). A lower standard partial regression coeffi-
cient for the texture parameter was obtained (b' = -.22). Thus it was
indicated that for a group of beef carcasses with similar weight and in
the young or intermediate maturity range, marbling and tenderometer eval-
uation could be used to significant advantage in selecting carcasses for
the tenderness attribute. The reliability of the evaluation of beef
tenderness based on subjective evaluation of raw carcass traits was sig-
nificantly improved by including the objective values obtained with th:

tenderometer.

SUMMARY

Results of this study indicated that the tenderometer may be of
significant value in predicting tenderness from measures on the raw beef
carcass. For the beef sample selected in this study (young bulls and
steers of similar maturity, weight and background) the tenderometer
evaluation, in combination with subjective marbling and texture evalua-
tions, was found to account for approximately 64% of the variation in
tenderness as measured by Warner-Bratzler shear on the cooked sample.
Apparently, higher degrees of marbling may cause the tenderometer reading
to be erroneously high indicating toughness when marbling, in this study,
was. otherwise shown to be associated with increased tenderness. An
adjustment in tenderometer readings on highly marbled carcasses to
account for this effect would be recommended.

In evaluating the cooked beef sample, the Warner-Bratzler shear and
the ALLO-Kramer shear press measures were highly correlated with each
other and with sensory scores for tenderness. Generally, the results of
this study indicated that these mechanical measures of the cooked sample
had a higher predictive value for determining sensory tenderness than did
the tenderometer (raw sample evaluation). ALLO-Kramer shear press values
on either slice or core sample types correlated well with the other
measures of tenderness on the cooked sample. The nature of the Warner-
Bratzler and ALLO-Kramer shear press methods (destructive to sample, need
cooked sample, time consuming) limit their use primarily to research pro-

grams. The possibility for broad commercial and/or federal application

49

50

of the tenderometer exists because of the speed with which the evaluation
may be obtained (24 hours postmortem), the simplicity of the method, and
the non-destructive nature of the evaluation. Thus, the use of the
tenderometer might be justified when the inherent disadvantages of the
other, more reliable methods (Warner-Bratzler, ALLO-Kramer and panel
methods) makes their use prohibitive.

The ability of a modified tenderometer to measure tenderness of the
pork loins selected for use in this study was highly questioned. The #
very poor association between the modified tenderometer readings and the
other measures of tenderness was felt to result from a composite of factors.
Removing four needles from the probe to permit insertion into the small
pork loin eye muscle may have altered the sensitivity of the device.

The "sinking" behavior of softer muscles, when held vertically for
probing, hindered the vauisition of the tenderness reading by proper
procedures. This problem suggested that tenderometer readings might be
erroneously influenced by the development of the PSE (pale, soft and
exudative) condition in the muscle.

As in the beef study, analysis of the cooked sample using the Warner-
Bratzler and ALLO-Kramer devices were highly correlated with each other
and with panel tenderness. For the hogs used in this study (similar
weight and background) these methods exhibited a strong ability to pre-
dict tenderness.

The effects of the PSE condition and of cold carcass weight on the
tenderness of pork loin were examined. Cold carcass weight, as expected

considering the narrow weight range of the carcasses, apparently exerted

51

little or no influence on the tenderness attribute. Increased PSE devel-
opment and increased tenderness were associated at low but positive levels
as measured by Warner-Bratzler shear and panel methods (lower PSE scores;
lower shear values and higher panel ratings). By tenderometer measures,
the opposite relationship was found between the PSE condition and ten-
derness. However, the unreliability of the modified tenderometer as a
measure of Pork tenderness, as exhibited in this study, especially con-
sidering the problems encountered in measuring the softer, PSE-type
muscles, suggests that these data have little meaning. Thus, a low but
positive association between the development of the PSE condition and
increased tenderness was assumed.

Results of an analysis of the bull and steer groups indicated that
the bulls had larger rib eye areas, had less fat, less marbling, lower
yield grades (thus increased cutability), a darker color and were less
tender than the steers. The variability in tenderness was significantly
greater within the bull group than within the steer group. The relation-
ship between various carcass traits and tenderness on the pooled beef
sample was examined. The indicators of fatness, higher yield grade and
higher marbling scores, were significantly correlated with increased
tenderness. Larger rib eye area and darker muscle color were associated
with toughness.

Cross-sectional tenderness variation within the beef muscle was
examined by taking cores from three positions, dorsal (nearest the back-
bone), medial and lateral, across the longissimus dorsi. No significant

variation in tenderness between these three positions was observed.

LIST OF REFERENCES

Alsmeyer, R. H., Thornton, J. w., and Hiner, R. L. 1965i Cross-sectional
tenderness variations among six locations of pork longissimus dorsi.
J. Food Sci. 30:181.

Alsmeyer, R. H., Thornton, J. w., and Hiner, R. L. 1965b. Some dorsal-
lateral location tenderness differences in the longissimus dorsi
muscle of beef and pork. J. Animal Sci. 24:526.

Alsmeyer, R. H., Thornton, J. w., Hiner, R. L. and Bollinger, N. C. 1966.
Beef and pork tenderness measured by the Warner-Bratzler and S.T.E.
methods. Food Technol. 20:683.

Arganosa, V. G., Omtvedt, I. E. and Walters, L. E. 1969. Phenotypic
and genotypic parameters of some carcass traits in swine. J. Animal
Sci. 28:168.

Arthaud, V. H., Adams, C. H., Jacobs, D. R. and Koch, R. M. 1969. Com-
parison of carcass traits of bulls and steers. J. of Animal Sci.
28:742.

Bailey, C. M., Probert, C. L. and Bohman, V. R. 1956. Growth rate, feed
utilization and body composition of young bulls and steers. J.
Animal Sci. 25:132.

Batcher, O. M. and Dawson, E. H. 1960. Consumer quality of selected
muscles of raw and cooked pork. Food Technol. 14:69.

Batcher, O. M., Dawson, E. H., Gilpin, G. L., and Eiser, J. N. 1962.
Quality of physical composition of various cuts of raw and cooked
pork. Food Technol. 16(4):104.

Bendall, J. R. and Wismer-Pedersen, J. 1952. Some properties of the
fibrillar proteins of normal and watery pork muscle. J. Food Sci.
27:144.

Brady, D. E. 1957. Results of consumer preference studies. J. Animal
Sci. 16:233.

Bratzler, L. J. 1949. Determining the tenderness of meat by the Warner-
Bratzler method. Proc. Reciprocal Meat Conference. 2:117.

Bratzler, L. J. 1971. Palatability factors and evaluation. In: "The Science

 

of Meat and Meat Products," 2nd edition. Eds. Price, J. F. and
Schweigert, B. S. w. H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco. In press.

52

53

Bray, R. W. 1966. Pork quality --definition, characteristics, and signi-
ficance. J. Animal Sci. 25:839.

Breidenstein, B. B., Cooper, C. G., Cassens, R. G., Evans, G and Bray, R.
W. 1968. Influence of marlbing and maturity on the palatability of
beef muscle. I. Chemical and organoleptic considerations. J. Animal
Sci. 27:1532.

Briskey, E. J. and Kauffman, R. G. 1971. Quality characteristics
of muscle as a food. In: "The Science of Meat and Meat Products,"
2nd edition. Eds. Price, J. F. and Schweigert, B. S. W. H. Freeman
& Co., San Francisco. In press.

Carpenter, Z. L., Kauffman, R. G., Bray, R. W. and Weckel, K. G. 1965.
Interrelationships of muscle color and other pork quality traits.
Food Technol. 19:1421.

Champagne, J. R., Carpenter, J. W., Hentegs, J. F. Jr., Palmer, A. Z. and
Koger, M. 1969° Feedlot preformance and carcass characteristics of
young bulls and steers castrated at four ages. J. Animal Sci.
29:887.

Cormier, A., Wellington, G. H. and Sherbon, J° W. 1971. Epimysial
connective tissue polysaccharides of bovine semimembranosus muscle

and alterations in their type with age and sex differences. J. Food
Sci.,36:l99.

Cover, S. and Hostetler, R. S. 1960. An examination of some theories
about beef tenderness by using new methods. Bull. 947. Texas Agr.
Expt. Sta.

Cover, 3., King, G. T. and O. D. Butler. 1958. Effect of carcass grade
and fatness on tenderness of meat from steers of known history.
Bull. 889. Texas Agr. Expt. Sta.

Covington, R. C., Tuma, H. J., Grant, D. L. and Dayton, A. D. 1970.
various chemical and histological characteristics of beef muscle as
related to tenderness. J. Animal Sci. 30:191.

Deatherage, F. E., and A. Harsham. 1947. Relation of tenderness of beef
to aging time at 33-35°F. Food Res. 12:164.

Dikeman, M. E., Tuma, H. J. and Beecher, G. R. 1971. Bovine muscle
tenderness as related to protein solubility. J. Food Sci. 36:190.

Field, R. A., Schoonover, C. 0. and Nelms, G. E. 1964. Performance data,
carcass yield, and consumer acceptance of retail cuts from steers
and bulls. Bull. 417. Wyoming Agr. Expt. Sta.

54

Field, R. A., Nelms, G. E. and Schoonover, C. O. 1966. Effects of age,
marbling and sex on palatability of beef. J. Animal Sci. 25:360.

Field, R. A. and Chang, Y. O. 1969. Free amino acids in bovine muscles
and their relationship to tenderness. J. Food Sci. 34:329.

Field, R. A., Pearson, A. M., Magee, W. T. and Merkel, R. A. 1970.
Chemical and histological characteristics of the m. longissimus in
young bulls selected for tenderness or leanness. J. Animal Sci.
30:717.

G011, D. E., Hoekstra, W. G. and Bray, R. W. 1964a. Age-associated
changes in bovine muscle connective tissue. I. Rate of hydrolysis
by collagenase. J. Food Sci. 29:608.

G011, D. E., Hoekstra, W. G. and Bray, R. W. 1964b. Age-associated
changes in bovine muscle connective tissue. II. Exposure to in-
creasing temperature. J. Food Sci. 29:615.

Goll, D. E., Carlin, A. F., Anderson, L. P., Kline, E. A., and Walter,
M. J. 1965. Effect of marbling and maturity on beef muscle charac-
teristics. II. Physical, chemical, and sensory evaluation of steaks.
Food Technol. 19:845.

Gould, P. F., Bratzler, L. J., and Magee, W. T. 1965. Effect of aging
on tenderness of pork loin chops. Food Technol. 19:146.

Harrington, G. and Pearson, A. M. 1962. Chew count as a measure of
tenderness of pork loins with various degrees of marbling. J. Food
Sci. 27:106.

Hedrick, H. B. 1965. Influence of ante-mortem stress on meat palatability.
J. Animal Sci. 24:255.

Hedrick, H. B., Stringer, W. G., Epley, R. J., Alexander, M. A. and Krause,
G. F. 1968. Comparison of factors affecting Warner-Bratzler shear
values of beef steaks. J. Animal Sci. 27:628.

Hedrick, H. B., Thompson, G. B. and Krause, G. F. 1969. Comparison of
feedlot performance and carcass characteristics of half-sib bulls,
steers and heifers. J. Animal Sci. 29:687.

Hegarty, G. R., Bratzler, L. J. and Pearson, A. M. 1963. The relation-
ship of some intracellular protein characteristics to beef muscle
tenderness. J. Food Sci. 28:525.

Henry, W. E., Bratzler, L. J., Luecke, R. W. 1963. Physical and chemical
relationships of pork carcasses. J. Animal Sci. 22:613.

55

Hendrix, J. R., Rhodes, V. J., Stringer, W. C. and Naumann, H. D. 1963.
Consumer acceptance of pork chops. Bull. 834. Missouri Univ. Agr.
Expt. Sta.

Herring, H. K., Cassens, R. G. and Briskey, E. J. 1965. Further studies
on bovine muscle tenderness as influenced by carcass position,
sarcomere length and fiber diameter. J. Food Sci. 30:1049.

Herring, H. K., Cassens, R. G., Suess, G. G., Brungardt, V.H. and Briskey,
E. J. 1967. Tenderness and associated characteristics of stretched
and contracted bovine muscles. J. Food Sci. 32:317.

Hinnergardt, L. C. and Tuomy, J. M. 1970. A penetrometer test to measure
meat tenderness. J. Food Sci. 35:312.

Howard, R. D. and Judge, M. D. 1968. Comparison of sarcomere length to
other predictors of beef tenderness. J. Food Sci. 33:456.

Jensen, P., Craig, H. B. and Robison, O. W. 1967. Phenotypic and genetic
associations among carcass traits in swine. J. Animal Sci. 26:1252.

Laakkone, E., Wellington, G. H. and Sherbon, J. W. 1970. Low temperature,
long-time heating of bovine muscle. 1. Changes in tenderness, water-
binding capacity, pH and amount of water-soluble components. J. Food
Sci. 35:175.

Lewis, P. K., Brown, C. J. and Heck, M. C. 1967. Effect of ante mortem
stress and freezing immediately after slaughter on certain organo-
leptic and chemical characteristics of pork. J. Animal Sci. 26:1276.

Locker, R. H. 1960. Degree of muscular contraction as a factor in tender-
ness in beef. Food Res. 25:304.

McBee, J. L., Jr. and Wiles, J. A. 1967. Influence of marbling and car-
cass grade on the physical and chemical characteristics of beef. J.
Animal Sci. 26:701.

Means, R. H. and King, G. T. 1959. The effect of sire on tenderness of
beef loin steaks as measured by a panel of families and the Warner-
Bratzler shear machine. J. Animal Sci. 18:1475 (Abstr.).

Moody, W. G., Jacobs, J. A. and Kemp, J. D. 1970. Influence of marbling
texture on beef rib palatability. J. Animal Sci. 31:1074.

Official United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef. 1965.
U.S.D.A. SRAC & M899.

Paul, P., Bratzler, L. J., Farwell, E. D. and Knight, K. 1952. Studies
on tenderness of beef. 1. Rate of heat penetration. Food Res. 17:504.

Paul, P. and Bratzler, L. J. 1955. Studies on tenderness of beef. III.
Size of shear cores: end to end variation in the semimembranosus
and abductor. Food Res. 6:635.

56

Pearson, A. M. 1963. Objective and subjective measurements for meat
tenderness. Proc. Meat Tenderness Symp. Campbell Soup Company,
Camden, N.J.

Pearson, A. M. 1966. Desirability of beef--its characteristics and their
measurement. J. Animal Sci. 25:843.

Pearson, A. M. 1971. Muscle function and post-mortem changes. In: "The
Science of Meat and Meat Products," 2nd edition. Eds. Price, J. F.
and Schweigert, B. S. W. H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco. In Press.

Reagan, J. 0., Carpenter, Z. L., Smith, G. C. and King, G. T. 1971.
Comparison of palatability traits of beef produced by young bulls
and steers. J. Animal Sci. 32:641.

Reddy, B. G., Tuma, H. J., Grant, D. L. and Covington, R. C. 1970.
Relationship of intramuscular fat and the vascular system to bovine
tenderness. J. Animal Sci. 31:837.

Romans, J. R., Tuma, H. J., and Tucker, W. L. 1965. Influence of carcass
maturity and marbling on the physical and chemical characteristics
of beef. I. Palatability, fiber diameter and proximate analysis.
J. Animal Sci. 24:681.

Schultz, H. W. 1957. Mechanical methods of measuring tenderness of meat.
Proc. Reciprocal Meat Conference. 17:23.

Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1967. "Statistical Methods," pp. 400,
557. 6th Edition. The Iowa State University Press, Ames, Iowa.

Sokol, R. R. and Rohlf, J. F. 1969. "Biometry” pp 208-209. W. H.
Freeman & Co., San Francisco.

Sperring, D. D., Platt, W. T. and Hiner, R. L. 1959. Tenderness in beef
muscle as measured by pressure. Food Technol. 13:155.

Stringer, W. C. 1970. Pork carcass quality. MP 123. Extension Division.
Univ. of Missouri - Columbia, Mo.

Suess, G. G., Bray, R. W., Lewis, R. W. and Brungardt, V. H. 1966. Sire,
sex and weight effects upon beef carcass traits and palatability.
J. Animal Sci. 25:1197.

Szczesniak, A. S. and Torgeson, K. W. 1965. Methods of meat texture
measurement. Advances in Food Res. 14:33.

Walter, M. J., G011, D. E., Kline, E. A., Anderson, L. P., and Carlin,
A. F. 1965. Effect of marbling and maturity on beef muscle charac-
teristics. I. Objective measurements of tenderness and chemical
properties. Food Technol. 19:841.

57

Webb, N. B., Kahlenberg, O. J. and Naumann, H. D. 1964. Factors in-
fluencing beef tenderness. J. Animal Sci. 23:1027.

Weir, C. E. 1953. The variation in tenderness in the longissimus
dorsi muscle of pork. Food Technol. 7:500.

Zinn, D. W. 1964. Interrelationships of live performance traits and
quantitative and qualitative characteristics of beef carcasses.
Proc. Reciprocal Meat Conference. 17:43.

Zinn, D. W., Gaskins, C. T., Gann, G. L., and Hedrick, H. B. 1970.
Beef muscle tenderness as influenced by days on feed, sex, maturity
and anatomical location. J. Animal Sci. 31:307.

 

APPENDICES

.lllll.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

mHhHmn- ma

-0:

* <F<O MQOQ

             

 

e 060666600onm0006000mmommmommMMMN6ommmomm606m60M66006AecAm hmA
. . . wooflnfiodnmoHomgoo mmnmmommmoflsmoénm 0A00 A
6- 066mm 600 omommqocomomhmommmmwmm mm 06060600660 6Am 0A0 bmA
. guwwfi m omQN¢6o¢6¢o~Amo6me 6>06o6% m» AmmomAmo 6Am NAN «NA
omobmmmmmmmmmo scommmO6Ammmmm m¢06mb0Fm6owb60A0006h00 AA 0 bmA
Ar6r hm mmomocoomm mommmomhm0606 mm mm 6606AA 0 66A
6r06¢>06m mco oeomomooos 000 060 0606>60Am60 060 A606cA 0 6A 066A
.. - it”); ggfim a” mm AW" Wu
6661666606mov0 mqoommoomqo 60W600WM A00 who N00 A0 000 AA 0 HoocA
A6mm666mm6wm¢ mqooomommm0F66000¢06meozm6fi 0e000h0 oho 00 b AA6mmA
Abmtm66>m6 A60 600b6¢0¢0¢0$0¢00660 6606060 fi>m0w6mommmo mA M 2000A
chm£6w6>066om 5033860069. omnmomemcmsm $0660 0 0606.09
666 06060 cm ocobomomoqo >60 mmozohozs6omoro Mb00060 0A wesommmA
-;--:-m At , e. +¢0mmmowm% 06¢MWM %¢mofmmowmm
660mm6a6666b¢0 mconmmommeoomeormqo qmo 0 mmo omwwmmo% A00¢A
0. 6660666.. 662060600066qosomQAn60m 0603660 AA. 6 n0 6 AA606A
wmmfl 3¢mm66060 6606060BA60 A60. mooeqoomAbo mooAAoomsombo 0000A
New mamFA6 660F6606060 069 0090660 moo smooqmorAA momoomeA
mmmmg6mm60 00m 060 omocmvoommosoqummo 600 000 aboumbmwAA_ momemmmA
-!.+6wu cuemquw6 o6ommmommmomow 66 h #00 000F06 nAsmA nomwA
m6- -mmmhmem6m 060006000600¢¢o am ¢6Q0060566QA0>0606006AmboAeoAmA
66866666 mmovo6onqofinqofimm 600609330 00060MWW0A9. 606A
m6¢rm666m 06¢ AqebmqommqobAqoeom 06060606060m£ A00A 066A
me mhcwéromq svemAmommqomneowmc meAmmommmomA6% AmAAA ch
ebmhmbcbmrficv bmofiAmo66000000 mm mmgmmmommwosvmmmmmo onmA memA
_ aemumM6m6 6m 0600mmom6m w wocdh0606066m 00A 0Amm A. 66A
c60r¢6¢m6nmmv 600 0006Aqoom¢000¢ 0A0066>006>066006>00m0A 06 meA
0666¢6mceem6¢ amemmmocomph6mo we msovnrommno6rro6AA hrmA
me . _ mmv amor6comhmomomwmec mwmm of Le Lomw6r 006A
ctmhmbce mm cmonmqom6mou6m 60 m6 0>00A06 Mm h 00A
ANAH

1H ma NH HH 0H m m m N .H

wmmZUMOZMF Fdwi OZAQDmde

A Xuozmaa<

mmnon
6mnom
ooamm
boabm
m0a6m
monmm
hmnqm
60amw
mNnNN
mnnAm
6Aa0m
mAaoA
mmnmA
pmahA
0Aa6A
bmamA
hAncA
mAamA
bAnNA
OAQAA
mAaoA
00n00
monmo
rodeo
60n60
mcamo
mmnco
hmnmo
omnmo
mNnAo

45fi2<

demci D

 

'7'! '1 | . iii..- 1’ ill.

llilu..i4|l¢i II 1.

ZOAHQUAKAFZWOA ZZDJOU I <F<O ¥QOQ a

       

66 6.660666066690060Amnno606066606A60666065066. 6.
ohm 6660 66066606660FA606660>6> 6606000A660660660
6 660630660 0066036006.: 0

 

 

_ 60666 .662666 . .

>600660606Q6mm 6669666 A660606 6606660Am606606b0
606060606A6 m6Q006m6mhomm> -0>Q6A>066>00hmw6
6h6mmm6o6ommmm6g6mm96660666 06616069Amoqmo 60
66 6b066mnmm60666 606600 60A660A660106Aoo
hAmo Amom66066mQ666 m>0666 m6Qmo6g6meA0A060
m6 b606n6nmn6gmb6 660506 66066b0606060Am6
6660 66006600660666 6660666 -0606660066006A6AA
660 6b0606.>669066 mouwmoA 606A60A600A6606>
6660 m60Amm 660FA6 006 66 0606060066066A00A

6606660666 660666 60666 6606660666 60060
660FA60666 6660606 A060W6m 660666060n 0A660
606669666 A6066 . 0666 0105
86225 6A 6A 6A 2 «A AA 0A A. m A. 6 m

 

m 6

AOMDZAFZOU. a X~OZMQQ<

XmOZMQQ< wwm *

¢mu
A 0mg
0"
mm"
A "Q”
A ON"
A «GA
on"

H
0 mm"

A606A
0666A
0666A
A.A6A

XWT
m H

66am6
6ma66
mma66
66666
hmaAc
6mu06
mmaon
omnmn
bmabn
rAa6m
mAamm
6Aa6m
6Numn
oAamn
mNaAn

a<:Hz<

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16°
17.
18.
19.

20.

Cold carcass weight.

PORK DATA -

60

APPENDIX I

COLUMN IDENTIFICATION

One decimal place (139.5).

PSE (pale, soft and exudative) score. No decimal.

Tenderometer reading at 10th rib. One decimal place (7.6).

Tenderometer reading at loin end. One decimal place (9.0).

Warner-Bratzler shear, chop position 1. Two decimal places (5.77).

Warner-Bratzler
Warner-Bratzler
Warner-Bratzler

Warner-Bratzler

ALLO-Kramer

ALLO-Kramer

ALLO-Kramer

ALLO-Kramer

ALLO-Kramer

ALLO-Kramer

shear, chOp position 2. Two decimal places (6.13).
shear, chop position 3. Two decimal places (7.04).
shear, chop position 4. Two decimal places (6.52).

shear, chop average. Two decimal places (6.36).

Shear-Press, slice, trial 1. One decimal place (36.3).

Shear-Press, slice, trial 2. One decimal place (36.0).

Shear-Press, slice, average. One decimal place (36.2).

Shear-Press, cores, trial 1. One decimal place (42.3).

Shear-Press, cores, trial 2. One decimal place (34.7).

Shear-Press, cores, average. One decimal place (38.5).

Taste panel, chop position 1. One decimal place (7.4).

Taste

Taste

Taste

Taste

panel,
panel,
panel,

panel,

chop position
chop position
chop position

chop average.

2. One decimal place (7.4).
3. One decimal place (7.5).
4. One decimal place (7.2).

One decimal place (7.4).

.I I11 \"I‘ll|lilll.t|. U l T C ,. T oTT.‘TT - T T T II . :15

zoAkquuAkzwoA 223406 a mawmhm <F<o ummm <AA onzwnn< mum *

A666 moobAooqmo AA6Q¢noohAh oAmnAooAmmA6o6omomA AfimémqqhmAAomAmeAooo nmzmmm
. 6666A60A¢ mmo6¢mmwm m 66A6®A66A QA A Ammmmhommrommgmmonnw oAzmmm
Ifiooammcowocgmom omonoo com 6 mAmoAN6m 06 AA A A6¢mmoomonom=Aoono> mAzmAm

    

 

 

             

-T-!-Tl--lA_rll..i :2.T...1..AT - rt: - A.-- 61.600 A fimwmAmmiwAAérAA AAomm rzmom
e A _ m n u w mo¢A6oA 26 o . Anmmm¢¢¢mflmmmeoconom mAzmoA

Am ,A- - M A i 6¢~66A 6F AAowonooeAcmmAamoAAmAm mzmmA
A6nooocoo6o¢omom rmodmoncmmgomAmormANoAm606 AA: mmnmqmonmAquAmmonmo mmzmrA
mammmo6omn¢¢m% fimnmme6eA6wA6¢AmvwogmnmA6A NmmOaboAAAomAA6mvoAo omzmoA

1A¢96>mo me¢Am mm AmgAmmgomAmmgomAmoAKo6m m.a AmqoamomoevoAmoAAcoo bAzmmA

....... - :>.>LA AXXAA66¢¢wm¢mmmgwo . mmm¢m®¢¢Ax+oAA®wAmwwm oAzva
m Acmmomwm 066 Mm mmofimmgommgomAmngmreookb voqnmommmeoAmAfimm mmo mAzmmA
A6AmmmmommmamoAA66mmew «AsmmA

«
A
wmo6omgwovgomummeo¢A6¢A b A
A Nhghmb AhmoohwowArommoomnogoquo=mmnmmLM.oo oA AAmmmmmhomAahoAAmoA omo mAzmAA
oomwwaemoo6mA6mmmmcoAmw.u h A6e606606¢mrmmmAmmmumho oAzmoA

A

A

A

      

ovoA¢romorooonoammamazvo cgommmmoerqhoArmAAomm mzwoo

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

--- -ys, , 666®Q¢¢666¢+¢wgmmm6m . .Wmomm oAnAAnnAA6®AAmmm mzmmo
rmo6¢mohocQoAgmmAquoquam.m q mgqmm hoomequAhmmucom ozmro
moonqmommwo6Aam¢AmbAooA AFA6m 0:66rn¢oAAcA omm mzmmo
ooo6o>osmoo6¢ammmoAmom m AAAALA$:om mmomgAmmAcmAAqmo AAzmmo

AF @6666 mammAmhemonA.. Aémnmm howAa mAAommAmco vzmco
moo MM06¢6 namvorAmhAh. AbA w 6¢AAAmroAmmAAmmm Azmno

i! T., - 1 NASAIQAMQmAu.-H ATMMM AHQPA N0 Amzwmo
moo moo¢mo ¢LooAmmAmo m. uonAo m omAmmoAmAm com mzon

vm mm um am on ma pa 9 ma 3 mw «Hang a m A. mm A. m m H .25qu
* wawwkm qhqo uwwm wmwzawozwk k<mz szaqumz k<bmoz 3
-5-.;. . , . , <H<mruwwmr:g. : wmwzawozw» k<wz.szamw<mz kqwmc: 3

(nu X“ OZMQQ<

10.
11.
12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.
18.
19.

20.

62

APPENDIX IIA

BEEF DATA (STEERS) -- COLUMN IDENTIFICATION

Hot carcass weight. No decimal (596).

Rib eye area, left side. Two decimal places (13.18).
Rib eye area, right side. Two decimal places (10.82).
Rib eye area, average. Two decimal places (12.00).
External fat over rib eye. One decimal place (.4).
Percent kidney, heart and pelvic fat. One decimal place (3.2).
Yield grade. One decimal place (2.6).

Marbling score, 13th rib. No decimal (l9).

Marbling score, 10th rib. No decimal (l4).

Texture of marbling. No decimal (7).

Texture of lean. No decimal (5).

Color score. No decimal (8).

Tenderometer reading, operator 1, P, 13th rib.
One decimal place (19.5).

Tenderometer reading, operator 2, B, 13th rib.
One decimal place (18.5).

Tenderometer reading, operator 3, J, 13th rib.
One decimal place (16.0).

Tenderometer reading, operator 2, B, l0th rib.
One decimal place (14.5).

Warner-Bratzler shear, steak position 1. Two decimal places (6.24).
Warner-Bratzler shear, steak position 2. Two decimal places (6.59).
Warner-Bratzler shear, steak position 3. Two decimal places (6.82).

Warner-Bratzler shear, steak average. Two decimal places (6.55).

 

63

APPENDIX IIA (continued)

21.

22.

23.

24.

Warner-Bratzler shear, lateral core position.‘
Two decimal places (6.52).

Warner-Bratzler shear, medial core position.
Two decimal places (7.23).

Warner-Bratzler shear, dorsal core position.
Two decimal places (5.90).

Card 1 of observation.

 

lgl‘lllv . -.III-, .II:

I
w”--.__~ r»- _ -L... -a.-..—-.--..._.-’ .

SdJ‘c'xidJ—fi'dfimmNNNmNmmmcfi'cfi"
. I

&
I

NEUN'NN

 

LL L, L.
.fLJman «warm , remowem

* mflmwkm

zouk<o~umkzwow zzDJOo I mamwhm «#40 ummm mum xmozwaaq wwm *

mt_rq toaconq mmommmoUomququomomomoULeosem mmm oeo

pneumofioomcoémm mmgmmmowmmommvomomonhmoeowooom omoUomo
L M L L L L L

L L L or
. snowmmorqnqum mmommm oeanmo
UrmtsrummmmorrmofomoUmmo mmomoqo omonmmo mcomomowmmonmmo
mbUMm hmwmo mmommaooom cmovv¢ %~¢om¢mowmvomhmoommoWo¢o
wow 0 demo $¢momcvo %m¢oooqo?mqo mqowmcoohco mwmmomo

L L Lmo¢% ovoooccmmq smolomocnm omo
meatrr tboquoqummoFoqo mcooomomoqo one. ooommeo hcoUo¢o
. hUm¢omm m¢obom m _ o¢oU¢m n¢ooom mmowm¢o
mt” omwommqomom meoomqo mmomfim mqomhmo omoaoq omommmo
otho_mUm¢amowo¢ mmgwm¢ mmommv me me mqomms mmommmo
hsvposrtmmqo rmmwocommm emomrm mmmmo qmomom mm oqo
pheromehmmmowmm daemon mmoohm ¢momo¢o mmoUbn on mco
mnemoratchoehmooLmULUm mmoma¢ mmohomo mm2¢o¢ mmm rco
mad pm 393» mmoLomq whomom me 0
«each ebmqqo _¢ thooev mmgmmmoomqommmo mm ome mmm _mo

LWJQQN E¢Nm03® mm9¢m¢00mm0®HWOG~¢0fimm ®¢Omm mMflhmO

afi—- ”-

 

    
    

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

”thonhébom¢ mmomavosmmoomm mm c¢ mm ¢o

awn mmt taoc omo hmodom maeo om omm mam «mo

0 :6 c me hwommq mm om m¢ mm m¢o

mHMHvH mH NH w w v m m H
<F<o ummm mmmzamozm» F<mz oznaamqmz

mun Xuozwflu<

MNEmmm
OHZmNN
mHEmHN
FEmON
Nuzmon
mimma
NNZmFH
ONZmOH
FHEme
onzwvH
mHEmflH
demNH
NHEmHH
OHEmOH
ozwoo
mzmmo
ozwho
mimoo
«Himmo
vzmqo
Himmo
HmszO

NZwHo
A<2Hz<

F<kmoz 3

10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.

17.

65

APPEND IX I IB

BEEF DATA (STEERS) -- COLUMN IDENTIFICATION

ALLO-Kramer Shear-Press, slice 1, trial 1. One decimal place (45.8).
ALLO-Kramer Shear-Press, slice 1, trial 2. One decimal place (38.3).
ALLO-Kramer Shear-Press, slice 1 average. One decimal place (42.0).
ALLO-Kramer Shear-Press, slice 2, trial 1. One decimal place (50.0).
ALLO-Kramer Shear-Press, slice 2, trial 2. One decimal place (35.5).
ALLO-Kramer Shear-Press, slice 2 average. One decimal place (42.5).

ALLO-Kramer Shear-Press, slices 1 and 2, lst trials.
One decimal place (47.9).

ALLO-Kramer Shear-Press, slices 1 and 2, 2nd trials.
One decimal place (36.6).

ALLO-Kramer Shear-Press, slices 1 and 2 average.
One decimal place (42.2).

ALLO-Kramer Shear-Press, cores, trial 1. One decimal place (50.0).
ALLO-Kramer Shear-Press, cores, trial 2. One decimal place (40.8).
ALLO-Kramer Shear-Press, cores average. One decimal place (45.4).
Taste panel, steak position 1. One decimal place (7.3).

Taste panel, steak position 2. One decimal place (7.9).

Taste panel, steak position 3. One decimal place (7.7).

Taste panel, steak average. One decimal place (7.6).

Card 2 of observation.

 

..

"humormo omo
waow om mom
a no" mofioao

L ”$13933 mwowmoamwngmomdfimsmmwmguogomooom "Loemm

 

 

zo~F<o~uHszoL zzoaoo u wJJDm <F<o
cc"mohmopaomgamoooammomommommLamgoomlmfirarm

«mmomomommmomomommnmoLobLmoLno;“womomoomom
a moaomo"Weegmhooomsmommmeoammwmgmgeomgoaom

camemmveqooeooo
>¢mmomuemmmnm6m
comemrmnqmmarmm

mmomanbmmemm

 

 

 

Homoommoammog¢LcarmoHmhoafiwoomogoamoomoomfi“monomorgodowfioomamomamflmyoom
“MmoomooLono mwoohogv«moowmooommwvommoomaawe”g¢oo”Wammmo~¢mmomLo~mmem
"mmmowmhgoqb.mooomvoofimoomabomopoHmmoeommm“momonofi”UHHNLOQNHmmmaocmLoLU
«mom _¢¢QoomahmmoommommmommmQQWLUOeommeefi"monomeu“memm¢©o¢gommnmn¢eooo
LUUFMWPog“noncom0hmmqmomoqooomheomemamommmooomqmaLemmomoommammmeemHmbo
Lanna«Uncawooaaod+moanfiooamNOwoowoowowNo¢ww“memoswflxmmmgiwmmeflmM1mmmnowo
LmooowmmooomumhbomboomqmomenoomHoeLommmflmmomomomamLoammqoamammmao>¢adbo
”Mmoozoogmmr. ”hommoomwhommhoomwooeommonemomowomwmgmmmmsmmmeomma«mmmmoo
"mooowmmomom mmmoeomoqonobomoooeoommmeommmomoaLLHmaofimmmmmmyommfiammgovm
Lamooowboooo HoromommmnmogmnoomemammomooeonOoomeqx mmm¢omqwnmqflawmwomr
abooHTmogqooooLoHUHonoroohroamoeo>gmommqmmomomomeqHmmmmmomvermqfimthmmo
JawmmURAHLa>>meoooo®nn¢oo~®~on~amoemmamhvmwwoaawedgmqwmiofivammda©o¢g¢do
«amoommomrmm Loosoooqoo quomoeoqmmhLommmomomnmgqHommmmeomeMbmHmmmgmoo
ammhommbomao momommm mmprmwommLLomemCLoomoomomoooLm oommflomomwmthmmammo
Lefioooooqoro mmopmooacm moommjoflmofimommoomoflrommHomenfihqgmmcfioocdwmo
Laooommm o~ mooUno nooommmoeooeoommwaemom emmmommmmomem¢mawom
3mm mm Hm ON 3 3 bH mHmHVHmHNHHHQHmwbmmv m m H
* manam «F40 uwmm mmmzamozw» e<wz ozunamqmz

(M mm X” ozmana

ummm <LLH xuozmnn< mmm *

onmwmme
omommc
ommnmae
omfizmo¢
momamon
omoumwn
onmmhm
onmnmom
mafimmmm
omem¢n

ommmn
“a ammo
ommmmfin
hmomom
oqmmom
no mmmw
ocmombm
no mmom
no «mmm
onomvm
$.53

e<emoz 3

10.

ll.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

67

APPENDIX IIIA

BEEF DATA (BULLS) -- COLUMN IDENTIFICATION

Hot carcass weight. No decimal (596).

Rib eye area, left side. Two decimal

Rib eye area, right side.

Rib eye area, average.

External fat over rib eye.

places (13.18).

Two decimal places (10.82).

Two decimal places (12.00).

Percent kidney, heart and pelvic fat.

Yield grade. One decimal place (2.6)

Marbling score, 13th rib. No decimal

Marbling score, 10th rib. No decimal

Texture of marbling.

No decimal (7).

Texture of lean. No decimal (5).

Color score. No decimal (8).

Tenderometer reading, operator 1, P,

One decimal place

(19.5).

Tenderometer reading, operator 2, B,

One decimal place

(18.5).

Tenderometer reading, operator 3, J,

One decimal place

(16.0).

Tenderometer reading, operator 2, B,

One decimal place
Warner-Bratzler shear,
Warner-Bratzler shear,
Warner-Bratzler shear,

Warner-Bratzler shear,

(14.5).

steak position
steak position
steak position

steak average.

One decimal place (.4).

One decimal place (3.2).

(19).

(14).

13th rib.
13th rib.
13th rib.
10th rib.

1. Two decimal places (6.24).
2. Two decimal places (6.59).
3. Two decimal places (6.82).

Two decimal places (6.55).

68

APPENDIX IIIA (continued)

21.

22.

23.

24.

Warner-Bratzler shear, lateral core position.
Two decimal places (6.52).

Warner-Bratzler shear, medial core position.
Two decimal places (7.23).

Warner-Bratzler shear, dorsal core position.
Two decimal places (5.90).

Card 1 of observation.

69f

1110111111111 111:: I." y 1 .1 .11.!

I

4

9

dfmthhjmrfiqutflnimtudlm

:nJmcunxmcu

ZO~F<U~¢~FZMO~ ZEDJOU I mJJDm <F<D uwwm mama XHOZMQQ< mwm *

NmUvnmommo>ommoommnommmommmomoooomogmmmgmmopoqmgmmmpmmmp
ow¢m¢¢ammmoommm no ooFomowom eoQFLo hogmmrghLmommnp
mcrmhcammohomooo rmomoboeonoqon oooUor mogmqno ornmrnp
mmneamcomm L moowomonwo ¢omo¢ -mmoonn (whonmmo
ochfienmromo mbofimmo orommogmthdmoomoo Loooqro mo momo
LmLmamU¢mw> . we boomhgmehoomooroo moemvw mmmomwQ
nommromooL¢o_omo «co ceomomomoq bqommq memov mmnboqo
mmmmamUmmomoz¢m ¢¢ mmowomommm mommm evgmmm hmobomc
mmmmmmammbmomoqo booWLooUmmoboo mmo cmo Looocoo.Lmomh>Q
mMFmfimw¢mo¢ m wooLLwomhoOO¢o one or hmeomm ¢oofiLov
ommcfimxonmo mmo moqumommmommmowqmo omo bmoemmobomomqmp
Looom mnmq ow omo mmomhqooom omo v¢ omooom .0mommog
bmammonm omoLhwmwmmo Lmoquoemm omo bco umoFLmoroq omq
moabLhom om o Lmo.o¢oem¢9mqm nvo o¢ «mQmeoUom ch
ommmnmom who Umho ooooooooomo chowmoo oonmooUmo

News Lnnm neoWom ¢o¢mmonma omoUom manomeosoq. mag
0mm mLm ooo hmonoo_omoemmommoQoLooUmm moobLm_ Lm H
merwoLom mo othmmoLoLumoonoLommomemomom vmcwmmmflmm mmoL
ocmmwerm Lho LoQLngrhooomoommbgmroomoo «noose omo morp
oqfimLmom ho Loomm>om¢mooo>1mooQoLmommr oophom om .
mHmHVHmHmH HH CH 0. m b m w v m N H

* mJJDm <F<O ummm mmwzawDZMF F<m2 ozuqude

mmna X~OZUQQ<

onmmmmv
omomm¢
ommnqu
omLzmo¢
momamom
omomem
onmmbm
onmmmon
oLmemm
omem¢m

ommmn
LL mem
ommmmLm
hLomom
oqmmom
on mmmw
ocmombm
no mmom
no cmmm

oLom¢m
Lsfiz<

eqemoz D

10.
11.
12.
13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

70

APPENDIX IIIB

BEEF DATA (BULLS) -- COLUMN IDENTIFICATION

ALLO-Kramer Shear-Press, slice 1, trial 1. One decimal place (45.8).
ALLO-Kramer Shear-Press, slice 1, trial 2. One decimal place (38.3).
ALLO-Kramer Shear-Press, slice 1 average. One decimal place (42.0).
ALLO-Kramer Shear-Press, slice 2, trial 1. One decimal place (50.0).
ALLO-Kramer Shear-Press, slice 2, trial 2. One decimal place (35.5).
ALLO-Kramer Shear-Press, slice 2 average. One decimal place (42.5).

ALLO-Kramer Shear-Press, slices 1 and 2, lst trials.
One decimal place (47.9).

ALLO-Kramer Shear-Press, slices 1 and 2, 2nd trials.
One decimal place (36.6).

ALLO-Kramer Shear-Press, slices 1 and 2 average.
One decimal place (42.2).

ALLO-Kramer Shear-Press, cores, trial 1. One decimal place (50.0).
ALLO-Kramer Shear-Press, cores, trial 2. One decimal place (40.8).
ALLO-Kramer Shear-Press, cores average. One decimal place (45.4).
Taste panel, steak position 1. One decimal place (7.3).

Taste panel, steak position 2. One decimal place (7.9).

Taste panel, steak position 3. One decimal place (7.7).

Taste panel, steak average. One decimal place (7.6).

Card 2 of observation.

71

 

ZO~F<U~u~FZm0~ 223400
I mmwzawozwk don DwFUmem wJJDm >~ XuOZUQQq mum *

 

 

 

LmL.m.mo.oLo.mL m.mLLm.hLLm.oLL
Lem.» mr.o ochL Lm.mL m.rLL
.mo.o No.0 m.mL ¢.oLLo.mL o.oLL
Lmo.o. oL.m L.om «.wL.m.mm_ m.>L.
om.b.oL.o m.oL m.oL Lm.bL
.mw.o Lm.c.m.mLLL.wLLm.mm o.mm
Lm¢.ome m m.oL m.oL o.Lm o.om_
LoL.rLLm.>.¢.bL m.mLLo.Lm 0.0L
Leo.¢ mo.oum.cL m.mL o.mLLm.¢1
me.mLoL.oLL.mLLo.cL m.oLLo.oL.
“mm.¢ co.hmm.mL ¢.mL i.mL _o.mL
-- Lom.wL¢¢+m vomLLL¢ L moh+Lo.hL.
me.> Ln.r.o.nL L.¢L m.>LLo.oLh
LmL.m ¢c.oLo.Lm o.mm m.¢mLm.¢mL
Lm¢.o ¢o.o_m.mL o.mL o.Lm.o.mLL
LUL.0 nm.o.o.om o.wL 0.0m m.mLL
Lm¢.m mm.o.o.mL o.mL o.mL o.mLL
wachme¢oLo.rL moom mommnm.mmL
w m v m N H
wmfiszflup2<

wwwzawozwk com OMFUmem mJJDm
mWMZQMOZMP kdwi szaDm<w2

>~ Xmalwafld

cmmL
mchL
mmoL
ommL
mm¢L
mmmL
OONL
¢¢LL
omoL
LVooo
momo
mLho
homo
ommo
ooeo
mmmo
rmmo
L¢Lo

LSC2<

eqkmoz 3

72

APPENDIX IV

BULLS SELECTED FOR TENDERNESS AND LEANNESS

- COLUMN

Tenderometer reading,
Tenderometer reading,
Tenderometer reading,
Tenderometer reading,
Taste panel score.

Warner-Bratzler shear

operator 1, J,
operator 1, J,
operator 2, B,

operator 2, B,

value.

IDENTIFICATION

left side, 13th rib.
right side, 13th rib.
left side, trial 1.

left side, trial 2.

"ITYflfifliTl‘flmjflfi'flfifl‘fl“!WET