..
J
.1
v .
T. .. .
.. .
A ... d .
u 3.. 5:;
44..
. .
-
U
V
a.
. ‘. . .. ‘V . . .. A. .. ‘ v .'..l..
. . . , . A A . .. ‘0...’.o.. .
o In. I , . . . . . .- . 5 I . t...) u
p . . _ . _ . ...u .
'

 

‘. v
» ~. Q.

”V... a“

. _. o. .
haw.» . .
[-113.43 .9 f

’1 r

. . . Who. V“? .o 0
21A . J...“ t... ... ...-a. at.
.‘flmmo;3.. fiwfivw. ....

.24.: ..

... u..lno..' I}: 5‘
. . . .v .
.. .. .2 . .-: a .u
. . .. . . . . . V . y . .A . v . .. ‘ .....a... .wya.u..o..‘ofuavnu‘.m$
. « . ,. . . . ‘ . . . .. . ‘ . . . . . , .:ab‘.t .I.‘ .. .. I 1.
..‘ . . ‘ ... : . . . _ _ . _ .. .., .. _ _ . .. . . ._ .. . . U ..H.....u...w¢...........1....
_

C

'1“ —-._-yyv-"v

'vq.

rv

 

. . . . ... _, . .. 0.
V . . , . . .

. . V . ‘ . . . . ... . .. . . q
1 ... ‘. . . . . .

.. . . . . . . . . . . .. . ....V
V. . . v . .. I. v. ‘ 4

...—4'
u“ "
-

Vt-vvr' V‘V".

9 90‘.

. ...

.
.. 0.1..

r—

W‘WYI 1"
. f
-

'V

v—I'v-v—

‘—
I‘vw

 

. l
O . . . . .II ,V _ a, ...d‘ ‘.
.7... . _ . . Q t . _. . . . -
W. a . . . - . ) .o . n :23 J... ... 1... : ..-. r. . . . a... .. . o . ..... . .8 .A f 3 ..a
t.¢J-. I D . o t .. \..I . .. 7h; . I: . I. .v 11. .. ... .. . .... I. . a. v . . in! . . ...... ,1 Y. o o . 73. .1”: ..r 00 . .. .s" .rr‘o: u!...}.. 5. l ...v. ‘1'
CODA. o ‘ . .0. . 0H _ A. O._ _ o . .1. . .. . . ... ....‘ . . .. .. ... .5. . . .1. w. l, . r . . _ . I‘
... u L _.o .. ...u. . m...“ a {150...}; - I ... 3. ...! . ‘ . ... . 3f, a . . .. .. .. .... . 3 . .

3:2)... . . . . .
All ...

i...

‘0.

. .01. ...Ir’v

. .- ~0K4. "O‘
. d

.Il...
.u {a (a...

 

.32.}... .3355: oil-E... 1.59 39.3.7.1:

.. .1...
1....
... ...!e ...I

. . 9.529;.
.Q _a. ...l
i "I. I.
u
— a ... 2.. :1 o‘.‘h~§,
. . ...; 9-1L.
. ‘9»3; .. .v! .

o. I
Q I .
...W5

,0}. ,t. ,
k a
”til?! .03...

. ..oo...“

,%’ C
. ...
. u .a .
.,. D? .

. , '

J.

I

u.

. .....Wfl.

71 .
‘11

F ‘
l...n,
Y .o . .
1....‘33

. t I. o.
. I'll“-

1.0.}. . t! . .
to . c ‘ 1
v _ of. . , ‘ . “0E a-l‘t.
. «a»...
Q. 0
.4
077‘ Ofl‘flW-fldm
. . e1) ....n. “.5 .‘n
. V . ... L..u..~..fl1...uw.m.wm
. :- .u).. . . : . x 0.19.013 ..
a | .‘ . . u
.....,3..:. . ‘ C...
.43.:
D

A...

I 0.:
.tn.)

4.... .iuvuv.
46.... .nloc .
...)?

p
n.‘

1:19" era... ’

.....to .
Io. .. 2: $0.

. .n‘t:
‘l"
J

.

I .c'.
. ........ .. .
. if;

. ‘go‘ .v‘I
..Cnal ..v: .

- . #2.... .p. . a. «.7.1....3nqmwnwfiivi... #uiiéwrnu. ....‘RuWH

. I‘iIEr

 

 

 

MLEW
M'fiché’mm Shh
Universityg

PLACE IN RETURN Box to remove this checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DateDuopSS-sz

__

 

 

“33$ '
Miafifigam Silt.
University #

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requeSted.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRCIDateDuo.p65-p.15

 

 

//iHE EF*ECT or KETHODS or RLvEATIxo
UPON PALATABILITY
OF PRECOOKED FROZEN BEEF Ronsrs//

by
Sister kary Ronald

//

A Problem Submitted to the Dean of the College of
Home Economics of Michigan State University of
Agriculture and Applied Science in Partial
Fulfillment of the Requirements for the
Degree of

\C‘W?‘ t--.
k1.-~:L .40. U; UVLLJNUL

kajor Subject: 'Institution Administration

hichigan State University
1956

F. '2..." 1...! unacynly-‘grmfl
JfiCIJCQ'o'.‘ 15413.} iovn'lJaV

The writer wishes to 6Xpr688 her appreciation to
Dr. Pearl Aldrich for her interest, suggestions, and.
assistance which made this study possible.

Grateful acknowledgment is also extended to Lr.
Pearl Aldrich, Lies Grace tiller, iiss Eelen aild,
hiss Grace tasuda, hiss Ann Long, and alas Thelma
Harmon for their particigation on the taste panel.
The writer also wishes to thank Kr. Lyman J. Bretzler
for his assistance with the shear force machine and
Kr. Robert teens for his help in the identificatien

of the muscles used.

11

a m .n‘ .3'7'1 'I V.) 0"“: fl)“ -' sit-:19
-* “ Q Cv" 'u

.ang 1"

,-

;.Ci::n:<~L:al4C “RIO I o o o o e o o o o e o o o o o e 0
L13? 0: n “I; P; AFC-2‘ 1:C ”1:4 0 o o o o o a e e o o e
II‘I’T‘QL‘JCFIT o O o O o o o 0 o o O o o e O 0 0 o o
REVIES OF LITEEflTUXY o s s o o o o e o s o o e o 0
Procedures for teasuring Palatability iactors of
baat o 0 o o s o e o o o o o s o o s o s o o
SUbJOGtiVC GVBIUItion s s o e o o e s o o
OUJGCtive evaluation e e o s e e o o s o 0
Combination of subjective and objective
evaluation 0 o o o e e o e o e o e e o 0
Factors Affecting Palatnbility Characteristics
of Nfifit o e e o e e o e e o s o e o s o e e o
Aroma and flavor . . . . . . . . . . . .
.. Tenderneae 0 o e o o e o e e e o e e e e o
.5 Juicincsa e o e e e o o s e o s e e o o
Factors Affecting the Cooking Losses of Boast
fieaf o o o o o e e o o e o e e e e e o o o 0
Composition Of meat 0 e o s o s e e e 0
Aging I e o e o 0 s e e o e o e o o s
Freezing; o e I s e e o e o o o o e e e e e
CITE-1'30 and 350 s s o e o e e o o e e e o 0
Surface &?6& e e s o e o o o e e s s o s 0
Cooking method, time, and temperature . .
Cost Of Edibla Portion e e e s o o o o o o e 0
P3003313? o e e e o o e o e o e e e o s s e o e 0
Preparation of the Lent for Roasting . . . . .
The roasting prOCOSS o o s s o e e o e o 0
Records and Calculations for Cooking Losses . .
Handling the COOkGd heat 0 s o s o o s e o s s
Samples for shear force testing . . . .
“1' Preparation of the roasts for freezing

111

11

ya
ya

E3355 :3

he
C.)

\
.4

www m m m
onucnouzc

\x xx *vu \u \u \m
\o a: «J «a «q \3

WW
\O\O

c n w?” ;w m'fi'vm
i'atil‘..tu.ht;‘v (l .r‘ C ').;l" ‘3 - A". L

Reh°8ting the Eefit o o o e s s 0
Trial investigations . . .
TGBt Procedures 0 o e o e e o e

Preparation of the samples
Shear force tests . . . . .
SHbJECtiVfi teats e s s s -

vw-t «vs .. ‘-~ v- r‘ r -- . .
TJ.:ni.' “5‘ 9 L '1 . ,1 ~{" ‘Q—‘ ?f\“
iL'J‘../'k 'I... ..1‘ .J l- ..i.‘ lki’h." .a V‘-

o e o e o e e
Pfllfitabllity PaCtOrS e e a o e o

Aroma and flavor o o e e o
Tenderneee and ehear force
JUiCinflBS o I I o o n s e 0

Cooking Weight Losses . . . . .

Total cooking losses . .
Volatile cooking losses .
Dripping losses . e . . . .

.\

Time acquired to Reach Certain Internal

TQMPGPEtUPOB e o o o o e s e 0
3?: iii 221:“; 3'! [13¢ I. C 0 iii-'1 Iii-.5 T3 0 o o o o e e e
LITEHflTURE CI?ED o e e o e o e e e e
AP?EEEIX o o o o o o e . o e e e o e

COORinE Loafiafi - e o o o e

Palatablllty Scores 0 o e e o 0
Wide for TEE-“Ste FRHEI o o s c 0
Score Sheet 0 o o o e e o o e

iv

3 (canto)
e o e e e
o e o s o
o e o e e
s e e o o
e o e e o

. . . .
. C C . .
o e e e o
o o o e
.a.a. e e
e o s o s
e e o o e
e o e o

e e e e
o o o o e

-Q*3
pa

5‘3”?
Moo

4mm:—
\NUVK)

:7 fi?
\JI

\n$=$*
knoxn \n

\nxnuw \n
mmm 4-“

C‘ 0\ \fi \fi ‘JI
CD *4 \O -Q C\

G\-.
CHO

‘9

Tabl. 10
Table 2.

Table 30
Table A.

Table 50

Figure 1.
Figure 2.
Eflguei.
Figure b.
Figure 5.

Average aroma and flavor eoores . . . . . . .

Average tenderness scores and shear force
readings e o e o o o e s I e o e e o e o 0

Average juicineee seoree . . . . . . . . . .

Percentage of cookinu losses and time
required to roast meat to 60° C, 70° C,
and :00 C internal temperature 0 e e o . 0

Average scores for aroma, flavor, tenderness,
shear force, and Juicinesa for each roaet

Average aroma scores 0 . . . . . . . . . e 0
Average flavor scores . . . . . . . . . . . .
Average tenderness scores . . . s . . . . . .
Average shear force readings .o.e. . s . . 0

Average juicineee scores . . . o . . . . . .

1+7
h8
so
51
53

INTRODUCTION

Roast beef is considered a favorite meat and appears
frequently on institution menus. However, despite its pep-
ularity, it presents some problems to food service managers.
It is difficult to calculate the exact number of portions a
certain number of pounds of beef will yield after roasting.
Because it is necessary to have an adequate supply ready for
efficient serfice, roasting sufficient meat to prevent shortages
and delays during serving is the usual practice. Frequently
there is a considerable amount of roasted meat left unused
after the serving period.

Serving roast beef which meets both high palatability
standards end cost control requirements is a concern of the
successful manager. Unwise use of leftover roast beef in
inexpensive dishes such as meat pie or hash would mean a loss
of the maximum profits from the roasted meat. However, it
is not always feasible to serve leftover roasts again at the
meal immediately following their original appearance on the
menu. Freezer facilities have been found reasonably satis-
factory by institutions for storing cooked meat.

One objective of this study was the investigation of
methods for reheating precooked, frozen roasts. The preserva-
tion of the original palatability of the meat eas considered

the primary goal. Another objective was the development of a

1

I‘d

quick method of reheating precooked, frozen meat which would
be practical to use if additional supply of cooked meat were
suddenly needed to take care of an emergency demand.

Sirloin butts, also known as loin ends, were used in this
study. The meat was heated at a constant temperature to the
well done stage. After a cooling period, the roasts were
sliced, wrapped, sharp-frozen, and stored in a freezer storage
compartment.

Four reheating methods were investigated. Steamers end
ovens were used because they are usually standard equipment
in institutions in which reheating frozen roasts would be
practical. In each of the four replications in this investi-
gation, one roast was taken directly from the freezer and
reheated in the steamer; one roast was defrosted and reheated
in the steamer; one roast was put into the oven at ZOhOC
directly from the freezer; and one defrosted roast was reheated
in an oven at 20h°0. Control roasts were cooked by the same
method used in preparing the roasts which were frozen and then
later reheated.

This study may contribute information that will lead to
standardization of procedures for reheating precooked, frozen
beef. The results should be of interest to food service cper-
store who are in search of more profitable means of utilizing
leftover roast beef. Moreover, it is hoped that the results
of this investigation will stimulate others to carry on further

studies of a similar nature.

REVIEW OF LITIITZ ‘ ATURE
There have been many research st 1di es done concerning
roast beef. As early as 1896 studies were started dealing with
palability factors and cooking losses of beef and factors
affectir g: them. The United States Department of Agriculture, in
deeperation with many of the State EXperiment Stations, has
carried on extensive research. Decided improvement in cooking

methods has resalted from these sturlies of beef.

Procedures for heasuring Pelatability
Factors of seat

Food acceptance is based largely on the stimulus of the
sense organs of the individual. Although research workers have
tried to devise means of measuring palatability of foods by
objective methods, they have reported little success in dupli-
cating the functions of the human senses to appraise flavor and

aroma e
Subjective evaluation

Scores of subjective tests are based on the Opinions of
the judges. According to Lowe and Stewart (68) subjective tests
may be conveniently classified in two categories: (a) preference
or acceptance tests and (b) difference or psychometric tests.

The psychometric tests can determine quantitative difference by

rating or scoring food quality factors. Because quality changes
can be evaluated by these tests, they are valuable research tools.

Perfam and Seartz (SO) discussed three methods of'conducting
subjective tests. In the triangle test three castles were pre-
sented to the judges at the same time. They were asked to
identify the sample which differed from the other two identical
samples. In the duo-trio test a control was presented first and
then two samples of unknown order were given. The Judges were
asked to pick the sample which was different from the control.

In the dual standard test two odor samples were presented to the
judges. They were asked to study them and note differences. A
second pair of samples were given and the judges were asked which
sample matched each of the first samples. Peryam and Swartz (U0)
recommended the triangle tests for discrimination, the duo-trio
test for taste, and the dual standard test for odor. All three
tested for differences as such rather than preference or superin
ority. They felt that this may be advantageous~in eliminating
phychological errors.

Davis and Hanson (57) stated that considerable information
was lost in the use of the triangle test if intensity desig-
nation was not made or if the test was utilized only for those
judgments in which the odd samule was recognized. They presented
a new method of evaluating the results of the triangle test in
which designation of intensity was required. All judgments were
evaluated in terms of an I-value which was directly related to

the probability of chance occurrence of the judgment. The

inclusion of partially corrected judgments provided for increased
efficiency by reducing the number of trials necessary to detect
a difference at a given level of Significance.

Foster LA) pointed out that there was great need for
standardization of nomenclature, methods, and interpretation in
the field of panel study of foods. He predicted a reduction in
duplication of research effort, the possibility of interlaboratory
test comparisons, and a uniformity of methods of testing if
standardization were accomplished.

Sjostrom and Cairncross (39) presented the flavor-profile
method, a descriptive rather th.n a measuring device, for testing
food products. According to their concept, flavor consisted of
a number of indistinguishable components which combine to pro-
duce a blend of few recognizable flavors. These components gave
the product character and individuality. Each member of the taste
panel recorded the intensity of detectable flavor notes in the
order of their appearance.

Thurstone (96) reported that data were being analyzed which
they hOped would present evidence that a "rational zero point"
could be located on a preference schedule. This would he the
point at which the individual neither liked nor disliked the food.

Perysm and Swartz (80) said that the panel technique was
worthwhile if used preperly, and in some situations they indicated
that it was the only approach possible. Relatively greater O
objectivity was possible by the use of tests which depended upon

discrimination rather than judgment.

Blanchard and aaxwell (12) reported that the scores of
their taste panel resulted in coefficients of correlation
~0.75 and ~0.7h with the objectively determined sugar content
of two groups of peas. This was encouraging when so many
investigators were reluctant to Live subjective scores much
validity. In fact, many different groups doubted the depend-
ability of subjective scores (5h, 53, 9h, b, L6, 6).

Investigators agree that panel members should be selected
with as much care as circumstances allow. Availability at test-
ing time may have to be an important determining factor. Never-
theless, it is well to consider some points which authoritie-
have published. Schlosberg (88) did some work with undergraduates
which gave no evidence of a clear-cut effect of selection and
training programs on the performance of panels. He maintained
that eXpertness cannot take the place of a large number of
judgments. hackey and Jones (69) recommended using for panel
work peeple who were able to arrange with high accuracy both
water solutions and the actual foods according to the concen-
tration of the added taste substances. hiss Fing of the Bureau
of Home Economics, U.S.D.A. (L3) found that taste sensitivity
for smokers, females and persons under 50 years of age were
significantly lower than others. Eradley (15) reported that
in the preference ratings of both male and female groups subjects
differed in their preferences. Women’s responses extended over
a greater range and tended to be more consistent than men's.
According to a report of a committee from the U.S.D.A. Bureau

of Human Nutrition and Home Economics, there was general agree-

ment that judges should be free from colds, infection, allergies,
fatigue, and worry. Because psycholoaiual factors play a very
important part in responses panel members should have an interest
in and some understanding of the problems. They said that the
judges should like the food being tasted. '

In order to obtain maximum validity from taste panel scores,
Overman and Li (75) recommended that the reliability of the
Judgments should be checked. A preliminary study and evalua-
tion of the tabulated data in which the range, the number of
duplicated judgments, and the absolute deviations from the means
was used to ascertain some of the more obvious differences among
Judges. Analysis of variance was a second method to measure
the consistency and the discriminating ability of each Judge. A
high ability to detect differences and a low variability in dupli-
cating judgments were indications of good judging.

Sweetman (92) emphasized the importance of scientific
technique for constructing score cards. She recommended that
qualities be selected and weighted according to the investigation
being made. Ranking was probably best for preference judgments
and scoring was best for difference testing according to
Harrison and Elder (5h). Two investigators (62, 78), stressed
the importance of maintaining anonymity of samples. They stressed
that codes should never appear in sequence and that any one type
of sample should not occupy the same place on the table in con-
secutive tests.

According to authorities in the field of taste panel work,

equipment and environment should be controlled. Air conditioned

rooms were advantageous to prevent odors of paint, coffee,
smoke, or other such aromas from interfering with accurate
detection of differences in samples (hi). If the panel members
were given immediate knowledge of results throughout the course
of testing, their performance was usually improved. This im-
provement was attributed to an increased motivational level
rather than to greater ease of learning the discriminations (00).
Isolation of the judges gave more accurate results according to
Foster, Pratt, and Swarts (AS). Placing the samples on paper
dishes was unsatisfactory; china, silver and glass must be used
to assure Optimum results (73). Fatigue was found to be a
disadvantage in some cases, but in foods such as meat it was not
necessarily of consequence (65, 81). From reports (8, 55, 79)
on taste panel work, the following rules were suggested for
panel testing:

1. Complete concentration on the subject is imperative.

2. be careful to avoid comparing samples with personal

preferences.

5. Perform all aroma tests first.

h. Tasting should be done slowly.

5. Rate each sample as you go.

6. Do not change rating once it has been made. This will

help to consider samples independently.

One article (5) pointed out that reports should carefully describe
the test environment, selection of panel members, and instructions
to the judges. It was found helpful to standardize the terms and

procedures to make results comprehensible.

15

Paul, Lowe, and KoClurg {77) reported a study in which
paired rounds of Good grade steers were stored at 17°C (35°F)
and checked periodically up to 18 days to determine changes in
the histological structure and palatability during storage.
They found improvement in aroma and flavor to the 9th day but
reported decreases in scores for these characteristics with
further aging. The decreases in aroma and flavor scores were
attributed to the develOpment of gaminess i. the lean and

rancidity in the fat.

Freezing Simpson and Chang (59) tested four different types of
Wrapping material. They found that samples of hamburg, bacon,
and sausage wrapped in aluminum foil or glassine-laminsted paper
were considerably less rancid than correSponding samples which
had been wrapped in polyethylene-coated paper or butcher-wrap

of a good grade. They used storage temperatures of GOP, -20°F,
-50° F, and -hO°F. Storage temperatures of -200F or lower gave
the best protection to the meat.

Hiner, Caddie, and Rankine (59) stored cellophane wrapped,
lard-coated, vacuum packed, and exposed beef, pork and lamb chops
at 18°F, 15°F, 00F, and_-llh°F. The exposed meat had a good
covering of fat which partially prevented it from drying out.
Cellophane and lard-coating were equally satisfactory in protect~
ing the meat from moisture loss. The most dessication occurred
in the exposed cuts. All three developed an undesirable flavor

which was attributed to both oxidation and moisture loss. The

16

5

original quality of the meat aeo ins: mpid lj in all types of
D

protection staaied except the vacuum pack. Temperatures 0;

C
O
”J
r
p.
,2
f
I v
(D
,4
(J
r.
m
d
:1
cf
i' '
m
C!
(D
(a
C?“
1
2
cr-
(D
L"
(.5
* S
t)
:1
*9
(...:

Lowe and associates (67) froze cooked roasts in cellophane
wrapph nzje. after storage periods ranging from 55 to 205 days
the roasts were defrosted in their wrappings without reheating.
The aroma scores of beef has a slight decrease, those of pork
ha& a moderate ascrease, whereas those for veal and lamb had
decided decreases. The flavor scores 01 tile beef had no change.
Pork, larzb, and veal had scores which were progressively lower
accordir; to the order named. They commented that it was possible
that very few of these chsnzes would have occurred if the roasts
had been stored for *0 days or less.

Harrison, Vail, and Kalen froze presooked stews and Swiss

.

steak.(56). a few days afte freezing 52 out of 36 samples had
lower scores than the freshly prepared proiucts. Storage of
5, 6, and 9 mor the tend ed to decrease further the acceptability
of the produots. The stews were re‘oea ted by placing the frozen
package, 250~€OO grams each, in the top of a double boiler for
1% hours. After £5 mi notes the stew h e thawefl sufficiently to
be removed from the bag, and the mass was then brolcen up with a
fork. The Swiss steak was reheated the same way.

Palatability of frozen cereal-extended ground pork loaves
was studied by Hoteling and Fenton (60). They reported that
scores for the frozen soy-extended loaves, whether frozen before

or after baking, were similar to those of free h loaves. Althoug;h

17

some of tne fro,en loaves scored lower toss the fresh, otners
rated higher. Similarly, some of the loaves frozen in the raw
state ratefl higher and some lower tnen those frozen sfter baking.
With the excegtion of one type from each of the frozen oet- and
wheat-extended loaves, tr e tote 1 scores were signer tr an those

f the fresh, esgteial 13 in Elev or. Slices were placed on warm
plates and served immediately after baking. Some were test 3’
cold. Tgere was very little difference in .rie pale tebility scores

due to tespersture'of the samples.

Grade and age Several investigators (3, so, 35) found that the

 

carcass graxe sixected the “alataoilitj of cooked meat. Alexander
(3) work-ed with. lame and mutton, others worked with beef. When
comparing longissimus dorsi suscles of U.S.Good, 3.3. Commercial
and 8.3. Utility grades after roasting, Day (53) reported sig-
nificant differences in grade for aroma soi flavor. However,

when the flats from animal VIII of Utility grade were Cm;’tted

from paletaoilit3=r evaluations, Commercial ené Utility grade samples
were found to be quite similar. Animal VIII had a p50L liar area
and flavor. tissues (71) studied top rounos, sirloin butts, strip
loins, and rolled ribs out from three sides of beef carcasses

of each grade, Choice, Good, and Commercial. Ststieticsl analysis
showed that the average aroma sue flavor scores for 3.3. Com-
mercial were significantly higher at the 1 per cent level than

those for U.S. Good and V.S. Choice grades.

Objective evaluation

Halliday (50) stated that subjective tests with carefully
planned score cards jave their value but indicated that they
should not be used as the sole criteria. Objective can be used .
in some instances and are more applicable to the needs of the

control laboratory (6;).

Juicinees Objective measurement of the juiciness of meat was

 

deve10ped on the principle of eXpressing fluid from meat samples
of known weight. Child and Baldelli (20) reported an apparatus
called the Pressometer and standardized a method for determining
the percentage of press fluid. Studies (21, 55) have shown
correlation between pressometer readings and juicinees scores

by taste panels. Satoriue and Child (37) found no correlation
between press fluid and palatability juiciness. They stated
that flavor-aroma and secretion of saliva play an important

part in taste panel scores of juiciness.

Tanner, Clark, and hankins (95) described the develOpment
of a hydraulic press which determined expressible juice content
of meat. Results indicated that samples having the same
percentage of expressible juice were judged by the taste panel
as different, beef was rated more juicy than pork. Beef con-
taining hS percent of juice and lamb containing 50 per cent were

considered by the judges as practically equal in juiciness.

 

 

Objective evaluation

Halliday (50) stated that subjective tests with carefully
planned score cards jave their value but indicated that they
should not be used as the sole criteria. Objective can be used
in some instances and are more applicable to the needs of the

control laboratory (6c).

Juiciness Objective measurement of the juiciness of meat was

 

deve10ped on the principle of eXpressing fluid from meat samples
of known weight. Child and Ealdelli (20) reported an apparatus
called the Fressometer and standardized a method for determining
the percentage of press fluid. Studies (21, 50) have shown
correlation between preseometer readings and juiciness scores

by taste panels. Satorius and Child (C7) found no correlation
between press fluid and palatability juiciness. They stated
that flavoraaroma and secretion of saliva play an important

part in taste panel scores of juicinese.

Tannor, Clark, and Rankine (95) described the deveIOpment
of a hydraulic press which determined expressible juice content
of neat. Results indicated that samples having the same
percentage of expressible juice were judged by the taste panel
as different, beef was rated more juicy than pork. Beef con-
taining hS percent of juice and lamb containing 50 per cent were

considered by the judges as practically equal in juicinees.

10

Tenderness Various instruments for measuring tenderness of

 

meat objectively have been invented. The new Yerk Testing
Laboratory Penetrometer (7h) was successfully used to compare
tenderness of right and left sides of the same animal. A re-
cording strain-gage denture tenderoneter was reported by
Proctor and co-workers (b2). This instrument consisted of a
complete set of human dentures. A cathode ray oscilloscope
was used for continuous measurement of the output potentials
from the strain-gage bridgeaamplifier sequence. For permanent
records, a camera adaptation was made. The motions of th
tenderometer were similar to chewing except tongue movement
and salivation were not attempted. The results obtained from
this instrument had not been correlated with subjective obser-
vations. The investigators stated that the initial tests
showed that it had good potentialities for aiding in solving
the problem of standardization of criteria for tenderness
measurements.

Bratzler (17) studied the Warner shear machine and stand-
ardized the size and shape of the Opening and the type of
cutting edge. He also found that when the instrument was used
on cooked samples of pork loine cooled to 70° F, the shearing
speed had very little effect on the total force required to
shear samples which were 1-inch in diameter. Therefore, be
standardized the speed at 9 inches per minute because this seemed
the most practical. The narner-firatzler shear machine was set
up in a verticle position so it could be read more easily and

a pan could be placed under it to catch the meat particles. A

11

high degree of correlation between taste panel scores for tender-
ness and shear force readings has been established by several
investigators (10, 90, 25, l, 11, 56). Leatherage and Garnatz (59)
found that the differences in shear force readings were not as

-‘

great as cifferences in taste panel scores. They stated that
although shear strengths appeared to measure fairly satisfacto-
rily a property of meet, these values were not closely related
to tenderness of broiled steaks as determined by a competent

sensory panel.
Combination of subjective and objective evaluation

Dove (kl) recommended the subjective-objective approach
for the study of food palatabillty. Lowe and Stewart (63)
stated that the objective tests for organoleptic qualities must
measure those characteristics which were correlated with accepta-
bility. Lowe (65) described a combination method used to compare
tenderness of different samples. This plan consisted of counting
the number of chews necessary to masticate the sample to a
predetermined end point. The samples were sliced on a machine
so that the fibers were all the same length, and samples of the
same size were used. Each scorer standardized the end point of
mastication and determined a specific gradation of his own scores
in relation to number of chess required for complete mastication
of the sample. Examples of the use of both subjective and objective
methods of evaluation has been pointed out in research done on

tenderness and juiciness.

12

Factors Affecting Palatability
Characteristics of heat

Palatability of meat depends on several factors which are
often interrelated. The subjective method for testing palat-
ability of cooked meat devised by the Cooking Committee of the
National Cooperative Heat Investigations (5}) used a score card
with ten factors of palatability. The intensity of aroma,
texture, flavor of fat, flavor of lean, tenderness, quality of
juice, quantity of Juice and the desirability of aroma, flavor
of fat, and flavor of lean were listed. Modifications of this
score card have been adapted by research workers according to

the nature and scope of their investigations.
Aroma and flavor

Cracker defined flavor as that preperty of a food or
beverage which makes it stimulate the senses of taste, smell,
and feeling in the mouth and nose (56). Howe and Barbells (61)
stated that meat flavor consists of the stimuli given to the
taste buds by the inherent organic and inorganic substances,
such as water soluble extractives, lipids, small amounts of carbo-
hydrates snd salts. Flavor may be contributed by compounds
produced from these substances and proteins by cooking, by
encyme action, or both. These same investigators remarked that,
although they knew of no work reported which substantiated their

belief, they doubted that salt increased the inherent meat flavor.

13

They found that after working with unsalted meat for a period
of time in the laboratory the addition of salt ceased to be
necessary for a number of panel members in order to enjoy the

flavor of meat.

Composition of meat Bransman, Hankins, and Alexander (16)

 

studied the relation of degree of finish in cattle to desirable
flavor. They found that flavor scores of lean meat improved
progressively in both intensity and desirability as fat content
increased.

Deterioration in palatability of beef, pork, and lamb during
freezer storage at temperatures between —8 and ~18° C, was found
by Hiner, Gaddis and Hankins (59) to be caused primarily by
oxidation of fat. They also noticed that the desirability of
the flavor of the fat was the best subjective index for high
scores among the palatability factors studied.

Dunnigan (AZ) worked with Choice and Utility grades of
sirloin butts cut in two styles, bone-in and bone-out. Fisher's
statistical test Showed that there was significant evidence that
the fat roasts scored higher than the lean roasts in aroma, l

flavor, and tenderness.

Aging According to Lose (66), aging included the entire storage
period from time of slaughter until the time the meat Ias cooked.
Deatherage and Eelman (k0) reported studies of the effect of the

Tenderay process on tenderness of beef. This is a four-way

in

combination of temperature, humidity, air circulation, and
ultraviolet ray protection against growth of micro-organisms
during the aging period. The tenderizing effect of he
Tenderay process was determined on 82 animals. The tenderness
the meat from Commercial animals was comparable to that of
U.S. Good animals, both unprocessed aid "Tenderayed". The U.S.
Commercial carcasses showed somewhat greater improvement than
the U.S. Good with the Tenderay process.

Lows (66) found that meat aged from 20 to to days received
Optimum flavor scores. Neat aged longer than to days usually
had an undesirable flavor according to most judges in her laboratory.

Griswold and Wharton (L9) studied the effect of storage
conditions on the palatability of beef. The aroma and flavor of
meat stored 37 days at 5&0 F was slightly stronger than meat
stored 9 days at the same temperature. heat which had been
stored is hours at 60°F under ultraviolet lights was more desir-
able in appearance and odor ‘han meat held under similar conditions
without the ultraviolet lights. These lights decreased the
growth of bacteris on the surface of the meat.

Harrison et al (55) reported that there was little variation
in aroma and flavor scores for roasts aged from 1 to 20 days,
although the highest average scores were received by roasts aged
10 days. When roasts were stored longer than 20 days, the aroma
and flavor scores were definitely lower than for roasts stored

less than 20 days.

I

Lowe et a1 (6?) obtained higher scores for aroma, texture,
flavor, tendernees, and juicinese from th highest grade. They
compared hfl Choice, 76 Good, and 2; Commercial grade rib roeet‘.
The amount of press fluid and the pounds shearing were higher
for the Commercial grade.

Aldrich and Lowe (1) studied 56 pairs of cuts taken from
six muscles of the beef round and cooked by moist heat. They
found no significant difference in flavor and aroma between U.S.
Choice and 3.3. Good grades. Press fluid was slightly higher in

the Choice grade.

Cooking methodJ timeLand temgerature A definite correlation was
found between cooking losses and flavor of the lean according to
Cline and co-workers (29). Their experiments were based on ten
methods of roasting prime ribs of beef. all roasts which ranked
low in cooking losses rated high in palatability. They also
found that tender cuts cooked in the oven at 125°C with the addi-
tion of water had lower flavor and aroma scores than comparable
cuts cooked in the oven by dry heat at 125°C.

The findings of Clark and Van Layne (24) indicated that oven
cooking resulted in more palatable top rounds than did cooking
similar roasts in the pressure sauce pan. Jodges preferred the
flavor of both the lean and the fat of meat roasted in the oven.
teat cooked in the sauce pan was considered too dry.

aldrich and Lowe (1) found that an additional hour of cock-

ing at 150°C after the pot roasts had reached an internal

a
L)
fl
:3
is

temperature of 9008 caused a marked deterioration in o.

flavor, appearance, and juiciness.

Tenderness

Bull ‘13} commented that many peogle, esoecially women,
regard tenderness as the most important factor contributing to
the palability of meat. Lack of tenderness in meat, according
to Rankine (51), was a liability second to none except unwhole-

SOEGDSSSo

Composition of meat_ Extensive researcn was carried out by

 

Ramsbottom and Strandine (SA) on the comparative tenderness of

the larger muscles in wholesale cuts of U.$. Good beef. Thirty-
five of the fifty muscles studied became less tender with cooking
according to the juuges' scores and shear force tests. This
decrease in tenderness may be attribute& to coagulation and
densturstion of the muscle grotcins and to the varying degrees

of shrinkage and hardening of muscle fibers. They emphasized

that the amounts of collagenous and elastic connective tissue

in the muscle also influenced the tenderness of the cooked muscles.
They reported that beef muscles varied greatly in weight, moisture
and fat content, pH, and tenderness. when they investigated
samples from eight muscles, they found no relationship between

the amount of fat within the muscle and shear force results for

raw or cooked samples. Rankine and Ellis (52}, using sixty-nine

grain-fed cattle, also found no elgniflosnt correlation between
t21e fat c1551st determined by ether ext rsc5ion, and tenderness
of the cooked longis31mus fiorsi muscle. They conclufleQ that

aria @533 in tenderness were eau sed by factors other than fat
content

In a 5155; £one in to 6'3 1H5b5551oc; (66) it Was 55555 that

the dogexdenee of tenaarness upon fat content of the inte ~21 or of
'1e ether 555530 1on metlod, was
si5n1fiosnt at the 13 level. Data were Detained from five musoles

from each of eight animals of varying ages.

Aging 112.1713?) ottom and. f5tr smilne {8-5) stated that beef was more
tender two hours after slaughter than at any time aft er tfiO to
six days. Eetw en the 9th to the 2th day after slaughter, the
beef was even more tender tha: it as; seen 530 hours following
slaughter.

Paul and Child (76) stuu ed roasts, cut from paired semi-

tendinosus and biceps femoris rascles of Good grade yearling

‘3
CT
N
1
O
"-1
HI}

steers and stored or 1, 2, h, 9, and 13 day periods.
They found them less tender immediately after éHl u5hter and that
tenfierness increased with storage. seer steaks were tender
immediately after slaughter, beea :11e less tenfler With stora5e at
55°F up to - hour , and returned to agprsxln ate 21; their or15lnal

tenderness a t1 store e of lhfi to 149 flours.

rev-1
(

Ten animals were used by Griswolfl s56 Wharton (£9). They

found that the variation between s53 .mals was ggreeter than

variation between Lifftrent grades acoorfiing t3 nethenlv 1 tests
for tendernass. Tho differez1ces L1 tex1fio r: 33 of meat aged for
7 to 57 days were not siqn1‘ ant 61 her according to ju’

scores 0? t?1e shear force results.

Freezing In a study of the effect of aging on tenderness E

an

L}:

Yankins {55) used paired short loins of beef and observed
that storage at 31°? hai loss tenfierizin; effect t 131 freezing.

After storsve the meat was cooked to .1 irterr £1 tar perature of

4‘1

158°? at 3 constant oven temperature f 592 F. When cool, the

0

meat was tested for tenderness on a uuwoe’-xrdtzler shear f1rcs

machine. 316 11v33tigator: stated th t beef frozen at ~20”?

it,

as approximately 12 per cent nzore teanLer 3111 has f frozen at
~10° or ~hO°P was a per cent mora tender than beef ripened at

fihoP. T.a 3 found 11*iPicau, -1f'fezenoe in the tenflernoss

L
0

between loins frozen at ~hO°F and those f zen at ~100F.

"i
L)

..

Ramsbottom (83) found that freazer storage of -10°?, or
lower, for seven years did not sionioifiar,1 change the tender-

ness of beof steaks. He ussd Choice graM beef short lolns sawed

G?

into aneminoh sJeaks. Half were t ted before freezing and the
other half were testefl after froezer storage of seven years. The
steaks were broiled to an internal temferature of 160°F and ten-

darness was measured with a Warnerufiratzler shoar force mu “Fins.

22

Grade enfl ere Hiner and Neukins (5;) used enimals varying in
eve from 2.5 months to 5.5 years to determine the effect of age
of tne animel on the tenderness of tnc meet. There was a

'.rnese with the increase in age of the animals.

L1-
’0
O
‘1
(1‘
I‘D
(.0
O)
f b
D
r5
1‘?
f.)
t-
(,t

Tenderness was not eeeocieted with grade to any appreciable
extent when S uncice, 3 Seed and 0 commercial steers whicn
t .

ranged from 14 to 13 manthe in age were compared.

Rib cuts were one and one—half times more tender than the

’1

51 st rcund cuts taken from the same animal according to Roble,

Hallidag and Klaas (7h). They measured degrees of tenderness by

K

using a mcaifind New Icrk testing laboratory penetrometer. The
differences between tenderness averages for corresponding left
telesalc T¢D cuts were very small when the cuts were

~‘ "18 5"." 517310 TF3 11110 I? o

\

Lowe an“ co—warkers (b7) ccckcé LO Choice, 7e Good, and

2h Commercial prime rice at even temycreturee of 120°C, 150°C,
and 175°C to internal temperatures of 5390 and ?§°C. $he
pcletebillty scares snowed that tenfierness was influenced by the
carcass graze. dcaste from commercial grace had lower tenderness

scores than these fr0¢ Choice and Goofi grade carcasses. Choice

grade was scored slightly higher than Good.

Cooking_methed) tine, and temperature Semitendlnosue muscles

 

from the round of beef were raasted by constant oven temperatures
or 1350: 150°, 1750 and 200°C to internal temperature of 58°C

by Child and Satoricue (25). They found no difference in the

'9

J

shear force tests for those roasts. Ltenuijg rib roasts treated
in the same manner SLDWGd slightly lsigner snear force readings
when the roasts were cooked at 200°C oven telntterat ula than when
cooked at the lower temperatures. than pork loins were cooked
to 31°C by constant temperatures of 1250, 150°, and 175°C, the
lowe at euean f\v“& re 311143 ¥L Pe ohteinod for t.*;e roasts cooked
at the lowest tenpePatureu.

Cover (50) used skewers in paired round-bone cnucn roasts
0: beef cooked by constant temperature of 125°C to the well-
done stage and f onnd that cooking time was decreased but tough-
ness was increased. In anot11er stufij Lover (31), using extremely
low oven tenper atures, founo that roetts were 319” aye tenler u.tlen
roasted at 80°C but that they were mealy an1 dry because of

t

excessive evagoratlon. HoaS's cooked at lZBOL were juicier but

less tenuer than those roasted at 30°C.
Cover (52) also studied the T618t103111p 01 oven temperature

and tenderness using constant oven eeuge'atux e of 12503 and
225°C to roast meat to an intern temoereture of CO v. Hound-
bone chuca and rum; roasts of beef and half hem roasts of pork
were more t:nder when coozea at 1:3 L tram tnoae cooked at 225°C.
No tenderness difference was shown n nedi um-rare rib and chuck
roasts cooked at 125° ' gnu 225°C, and relatively small élfferencee
in total 0201 :ing tin were ooeorved.

In a etujy previously montioneé, noble, fialliday, and

filaas (1: do: ralneu the tendorne.as of beef cooked to Gloand
75°C internal temperature at an oven temperature of 1&900. Yney
concluded from the penetometer readings t1 at toughening occurred

during heating from 61° to 75°C.

Juiciness

According to Lowe and co-workers (67) the kind of roast,
whether boned or not, the degree of doneness and the oven
temperature influence juiciness. Latske (6h) commented that the
quality and palability of a roast is largely determined by
juiciness. She found, from her studies in standardizing methods
of roasting beef, that juiciness can be measured to some extent

by the amount of cooking losses in the meat.

Composition of meat From a study of 595 rib roasts from U.S.

 

Choice, Good, Radium, and Common grade beef carcasses, Alexander
and Clark (A) reported findings on the effect of grade on palat-
ability and cooking weight losses. They found that the roasts
cooked with the bone in were juicier than comparable boned and
rolled roasts. These findings were substantiated by Child and
Eeteros (21), who found that standing rib roasts scored higher
than comparable boned roasts when they were tested with a press-
ometer or scored for juiciness by a panel.

Barbells and co-workers (7) used 728 beef rib roasts in
their study of flavor and juiciness in beef in relation to fatness
and other factors. They found a range of fat percentage from
7.5 to 57.5 in these roasts. The scores showed that the juice
of beef rib roasts increased quite rapidly with increase of fat-
ness to 22.5 per cent and more slowly from that point to L2.5
per cent. fieyond the h2.5 per cent level there was no apparent

relation between fatness and juiciness.

"0

25

Aging Griswold and hhartcn, in a previously mentioned study (hg),
found that beef aged 9 days at 0°C was more juicy than beef
stored 57 days at 0°C. Little variation was found by Harrison (55)
in Juiciness scores of the roasts aged from 1 to 20 days at 0°C.
Evaporation of the fluids in he roasts during aging was probably
great enough to reflect in the juiciness scores of the cooked
roasts.

Pau1,'Lose, and ycfllurg (77) reported a gradual increase in
juiciness scores during the 18 days of aging. The press fluid
decreased and then increased sharply during storage. This was
attributed to changes in the waterbinding powers of the proteins
and the permeability of the cell membranes.

hackintosh and co-werkers (70) found that ripened samples
scored higher in Juiciness than the samples which were cooked
unripened. tierbicki and co-workera (98) suggested a possible
explanation for these findings. They studied 52 animals which
were fed out to market weight at 15-16 months of age. Data were
obtained from reenlts of nitrogen extraction. During post mortem
aging, pm shifted slightly toward alkalinity. There was not a
single case in which the pH dropped. This pH shift was away from
the iscelectrio point of the muscle protein and caused an in~
crease in water-holding capacity. These investigators suggested
that the important qualities of meat tenderness, shrinkage during
cooking, and rehydration after dehydration may all be primarily

related to the degree of hydration of the meat proteins.

26

Grade and age Cline, Loughead, and Schwartz (27) found increased

 

Juiciness in the higher grades of meat in their study of steaks
from U.S. Good and medium grades of heifers, cows, and steers.
Vail and O'Neill (98) reported results from cooked rolled rib,
top roun , and clod cuts. The cuts from U.S. Choice grade
yielded appreciably less press fluid than did the cuts from
v.3. Good. The taste panel scores for juiciness showed Opposite
results.

Day (58), in a previously men ioned study, concluded that
there was little difference in average score for juiciness of

U.S. Utility, Commercial, and Good grade cuts.

Cooking method,_time, and tomperaturg_ According to Satorious

 

and Child (86) the fact has long been established that tempera-
ture and length of cooking affect the juiciness of beef roasts.
Child and Fogarty (22), in their study of the relationship of
interior temperature of beef muscle to press fluid content,
reported that ll per cent more press fluid was obtained from
roasts cooked to an internal temperature of 58°C than from roasts
cooked to an internal temperature of 75°C. Child and Esteros (21)
reported that increases in the degree of dances were related
directly to decreases in juiciness. Noble, Halliday and Klaas (7h)
found that standing rib roasts cooked to 61°C were somewhat more
juicy than those cooked to 75°C internal temperature.

Lorgan and Kclson (75) found that skewered roasts were more

juicy than unskewered roasts which were cooked to the same

27

internal temperature. Because the oven temperatures used for
both methods were the same, they attributed this difference in
juiciness to the increased Speed of heat penetration and de-
creased cooking time.

The judges found no significant difference in juiciness of
meats cooked in air, steam, water, or fat according to Harrison
(55). There was no significant difference in the amount of press
fluid at the center of the roasts attributable to cooking
mediums; but there was a highly significant difference in the
amount of press fluid from samples taken one-half inch from the
surface. Meets cooked in air had the most press fluid. The
cuts cooked in steam contained the smallest amount of press
fluid. Fat and water, as cooking mediums, produced roasts with
press fluid between the amounts in those cooked in air and steam.

Child and Satorius (25) reported that oven temperatures
of 125°, 150°, 175°, and 200°C did not affect the press fluid of
beef muscles cooked to an internal temperature of 58°C. From
the studies of Cline and co-workers (29) it appeared that high
temperature decreased the juiciness of roasts. The beef was
cooked at oven temperatures of 110°, 165°, 191°, 2180 and

260°C to an internal temperature of 57°C,

Factors Affecting the Cooking Losses of Roast Beef

Bevier, Grindley, and their associates (9, L7, #8)
concluded that composition, cooking temperature, and internal
temperature of the meat were the three principle factors
which affected the nature and extent of cooking losses.

Lome (66) stated that total losses occuring during the cook-

ing of meat have varied from 5 to more than 50 per cent.

Composition of meat

Black, Warner and Wilson (11) reported that meat from
supplement-fed steers showed less evaporation loss during
cooking than did meet from thinner, grass-fed cattle. There
were more drippings from the fatter animals than from the
thinner ones.

Helser, Eelson, and Lowe (57) found that beef roasts
with high fat content had a greater total cooking weight loss
and also a higher dripping loss than did lean roasts. In
this study ribs of feeder and fattened two-year-old steers
were cooked at 125°C. Total cooking losses were 11 per cent
for ribs from feeder steers and 15 per cent for the fattencd
animals; the dripping losses were 1 per cent and 7 per cent,
respectively.

Thille, Williamson, and horgan (95) cooked standing ribs
of beef at 210°C oven temperature to an internal temperature

of 65°C. Their findings showed the average total weight loss

29

for lean roasts was 29 per cent, for fat-covered roasts was
53 per cent. They attributed the difference in total weight
losses to the rendering of surface fat. Volatile losses
were reported to be less in the fat roasts than in the lean
roasts. Dunnigan's work on sirloin butts (£2) agreed with
these findings.

Child and Esteros (21) found that rolled roasts averaged
5 per cent higher total cooking weight losses than standing
roasts cooked at an oven temperature of thOC to an internal

temperature of 53°C. Alexander and Clark (h) and Lowe and

co-workers (67) reported similar findings.

Aging

Koran and Smith (72) and Harrison (53) found that longer
ripening periods decreased the weight losses during cooking.
The former study showed the average cooking losses of tOp

round, bottom round, and loin of beef after ripening 3, 7,

and 16 days to be 29.5, 2h.1, and 25.9 per cent, respectively.

Freezing

Cline and associates (29) showed that both the total
cooking losses and cooking time were affected by the initial
temperature of roasts when they were put into the oven. Roasts

with low initial internal temperatures at the beginning of

50

the cooking period showed greater cooking losses than did
roasts with higher internal temperatures when cooking began.
Lowe and co-workers (67) compared the effect of four
methods of defrosting meat and the manner and temperature
of cooking upon weight loss and palatability of the roasts.
Frozen cuts of meat required a longer time to reach the
same internal temperature than comparable cuts which were
thawed. Data for hl groups of roasts showed that the frozen
cuts did not always have greater cooking weight losses than
the defrosted meat. In 31 of these groups the cooking weight
loss was greater for those roasts which were frozen when
cooking began. Opposite findings were reported for the other

10 groups of roasts.

Grade and age

Alexander (5) studied rib roasts ranging from Choice
to Canner grade beef. She found that dripping losses from
roasts cooked at an oven temperature of 125°C to an internal
temperature of 58°C varied from 5.7 per cent for the Choice
grade to 0.h per cent for the Canner grade; the evaporation
losses ranged from 6.5 per cent for Choice to 10.9 per cent
for the Canner grade. The results of investigations by
Black, Warner, and hilson (11) agreed with these findings.
Alexander and Clark (h) found that among roasts classified

according to grade, those in the highest grade usually showed

smaller evaporation losses and lar5er dripping losses, re-

of cutting or the met} rod of cooking.

(D

gareless oi Sb yl

"u.

bunnigan (+2) reported a dif He once in total cooking

lesser of 5.7h per cent between C} ioice and [w ility sirloin
butts bone-in and 2.50 per cent differen(3e in the same grades
boneless. The .ifference was in favor of the Choice grade
in both instances.

'Hasuda (71) ound no signiiicant difference in volatile
losses according to grade; difference in drippin5 losses

attrinutable to 5r; (-6 were significant only for roasts at

. o. . m. -. .
Q0 C 1:Mer1al temperature. :ne average urippin5 losses at

\

90°C for Good and Choice grades were significantly hi5her than
those for Commercial grade. There was no si5nificant differ-
ence Lteteeen averag 6 total cooking losses attrioutable to
grade at any of the internal temperatures.

Day (53) discovered no si5nificant difference attributable

to grade in the average total cooking wei gzht losses, volatile

losses, or drip losses.

Surface area

Compact pieces of meat with small surface areas showed
less cookin5 wei5ht lose es than pieces which had irregular
sha13es and 5rester surface areas. Square or blocky roasts
required lon5er cooking time per pound than thin, flat roasts
according to two ex tensive st adios made at the Iowa A5ricul-

tural Experiment Station (57, 67).

52

Cooging method, time, and temperature

In the early days of meat cookery research Wood (991
proposed he theory that an intensely hot fire coagulated
the exterior of the roeet and thereby prevented the crying

O

Oi the meat juices. He stated that shrinkaee in roast meat

was chiefly due to water loss.

Grindle; and fiojcnnier (AB) in 1903 noted that losses
in the roasting of meat were attributable chiefly to the
melting of fat and evaporation of water. Eigher cooking
temperatures and higher internal temperatures generally resulted
in greater cooking losses. ?hey compared 5 roasts cooked to
rare, 5 to medium, and h to well done stage. They recommended
2to°o (uSOOF) for 15 minutes and 195°C (580°?) for the re~
meining time.

Results of studies conducted by Child and Setoriue (25)
indicated that cooking losses in beef were greater when the
meat was roasted at constant temperatures of 200° and 175°C
or soured at 260°C for 20 minutes and finished at 150°C than
when cooke at 150°C constant temperature. Cline and her
associated (29) agreed with those results. They seared prime
ribs and finished them at different oven temperatures; one
roast was begun in a cold oven, seared and fiiished in a
lh9°C oven; constant oven temperatures ranging from 110°C
to 260°C were used in a total of 10 methods. fhey concluded
that searing increased the cooking weight losses and that

low oven temperatures were correlated with low cooking losses.

Bevier and Sprsguc (9) reported that total cooking
weight losses of seared one-rib beef cuts, cooked to the
rare stage, varied from 5.9 per cent for roasts finished at
85°C oven temperature to 20.6 per cent for those finished at
260°C oven temperature. Cline and co-uorkers (29) tested
the effect of various oven temperatures upon cooking losses
and pslstahility of several types of beef roasts. They
concluded that an oven temperature of 125°C, as compared with
165°C, decreased the cooking losses but increased the time
required to reach a given internal temperature. Actual
losses of 6 types of roasts varied from 7 to 1h per cent at
125°C and from 9 to 20 per cent at 165°C. A temperature
of 260°C increased losses to 50 per cent.

Three-rib beef cuts were roasted to medium stage by
Latske (65, 6h). Weight loss for seared roasts ranged from
15.52 per cent when finished at 110°C oven temperature to
22.h9 per cent when finished at 175°C.

Cover (52) found that cooking losses for paired three-
rib beef roasts cooked medium rare averaged 7.1 per cent
when oven was at 125°C and 20.2 per cent when 225°C oven
temperature was used. Other studies (26, 27, 67) verified
that low oven temperatures for roasting result in lower
cooking weight losses than do high oven temperatures.

Lows (66) reported that 12 pairs of two-rib beef roasts '
cooked at 150°C showed 7.7 per cent cooking loss at 55°C

internal temperature and 16.6 per cent cooking loss at 75°C

5h

internal temperature. Latske (6h) cooked beef rib roasts at
125°C oven temperature to 51°C with losses at 16.8 per cent,
61°C resulted in cooking losses of 18.6 per cent, and internal
temyereture of 71°C resulted in cooking losses of 22.5 per
cent. fihe recommended the following internal temperatures:
for rare heef cook to 51°C; for medium beef cook to 61°C;
for well-done beef cook to 71°C.

A drioh and Lowe (1) reported total cooking losses of
beef pot roasts at 90°C internal temperature to be 3h.h and

r . fl
3") 735‘? Cant

_ o
S ‘ ‘ J

for paired cuts cooked an additional hour
beyond 90°C internal temperature, the average losses were
53.2 and 59.6 for Choice and Good grades, respectively.
Many other studies have shown that total cooking weight losses
increased with each rise in internal temperature of the
meat (h. 9. 22. 71)-

Severel investigators (50, 73) reported that the use
of skewers reduced the cooking time and thus lowered the
cooking losses. {organ and fieleon (75) found the total loss
of weight in skewered roasts averaged 27.3 per cent as com-
pered with 51.5 per cent in unskewered roasts. Cover (50)
cooked paired rounds, arm-bone chuck, and standing rib roasts
to the well done stage with and without skewers at an oven
temperature of 125°C. Her results supported the findings
of Eorgen and Nelson.

Grindley and Mojonnier (he) reported that the total losses

of meats cooked in covered pens were greater than those cooked

55

e

uncovered. Inch it was cooked the same length of time and
at the same oven temperature, the meat was more thoroughly
cooked in the covered than in the open pans. They based
their conclusions on results from one roast cooked in a
covered pan and 15 roasts cooked in Open pans. morgan and
flolson (75) found the average losses of 25.8 per cent for

tho meats cooked in open pans and 23.5 per cent for meats cooked

in covered containers.

Cost of Edible Portion

Vail (97) in 1556, compared tap clod, rib, and top
round cute reigning from twelve to fifteen pounds in each
of twenty cooking periods. The roasts were cooked at a
constan oven temperature of 150°C, to an internal temperature
of 69°C. or all the cuts tested, the v.3. Good clod was
the most economical. The U.5. Choice rib was the most ex-
pensive.

Cline and Mesbitt (28), in 1956, conducted experiments
on cooking losses and yields of prime ribs, chucks, top
rounds, and heels of rounds. Yields were based on the number
of 100 gran servings obtainable from a pound of raw meat.
Portion costs of meat at the well~done stage showed that top
round was the most expensive, prime ribs were next. Chuck
and heel of round were least expensiro and on 100 gram servings
was aporoximately h¢ cheaper than the same size serving f

top round.

‘56

I n

Dunnigan (44), in 19h}, reported from her study of
related sirloin butts that the U.S. Choice, boneless cuts
cost less per pounfi than dié the Utility, hone-in cuts.

The Vtility, boneless roasts cost lees than the Choice,
boneless cuts but were inferior to then in pelebility.

Aldrich and Lowe (l), in 1951, used beef r ands of U.S.
Choice and Good grades. The cost of 2.5 ounce edible portions
for the Choice cooked to 90°C was higher than for the Good
grade. When roasts were cooked 1 hour longer, the cost of
each was approximately the some. The cost of the Good roast
increased more than the cost of the Choice roaet.

Day (38), in 19h}, found that the cost per pounfl for
U.S. Good grade longiesimus dorsi naecle was higher than for
the Commercial and Utility graies when roasted. The cost
of the roasted Utility meat was the lowest.

fiesuds (71), in 1955, found that the increase in cost
for adflitionel cooking from 80° to 90°C varied from 8%

to 15¢ per pound for the four different cute which she studied.

,57

PROCEDURE

At intervals of one week boneless sirloin butts of
U.S. Choice grade were purchased in groups of four, roasted,
wrapped, and frozen so that they could be reheated for
sampling after h weeks of frozen storage. The Food Stores
delivered the anterior sections of the cuts to the research
laboratory Just prior to each roasting period. A single
roast was also cooked as a control when each group of
precooked, frozen roasts was reheated. There were no
available data on the carcasses from which the roasts were

taken.

Preparation of the Meat for Roasting

Each roast was assigned a code number under which all
data for it were recorded. A balance-type Detecto scales,
16—pound capacity, was used to weigh each roast. The
average weight of the 20 roasts was 9.58 pounds. Each cut
was then placed, fat side up, on a rack in an aluminum
pan, 16" x 12" x 2%". Straight tube-type thermometers, with
temperatures engraved on glass and calibrated from 00 to
105°C in 10 intervals, were used. The thermometer was in-
serted so that the bulb was as near the center of the roast

as possible.

4‘;

The roasting process

One deck of a triple-deck Hot Point Electric roasting
oven was heated to lh9°C for one hour before the meat was
placed in it. Two moeller mercury-filled thermometers were
used to check the oven temperature. The meat was roasted
uncovered at a constant oven temperature of lh9oc. Four
cuts were roasted in separate pans at the same time in one
even deck. The time required for the roasts to reach 60°,
70°, and 80°C internal temperature was recorded. It was

necessary to cpen the oven door to check the temperatures.
Records and Calculations for Cooking Losses

Approximately 15 minutes after removal from the oven,
each roast, together with its drippings, was weighed. Vola-
tile losses were calculated by subtracting this figure from
the weight of the uncooked roast. One-half to one hour
after it was removed from the oven, each roast was placed
on a sheet of heavy aluminum foil and weighed. Next the
dripping losses were recorded. Total cooking losses were
calculated by subtracting the cooked weight or each roast

from.its raw weight.

*3

*3

\H
0

Handling the Cooked Meat

The roasts were cooled at room temperature from to
to 60 minutes. The covering of fat and the biceps femoris
muscle were then removed by separating the connective
tissues. The gluteus medius muscle was obtained for use
in the palatability tests. A slice, approximately 1.5 mm.
thick, was removed across the grain to facilitate further
preparation of samples for shear readings and taste panel

scoring.

Samples for shear force testing

A sample for testing tenderness on the Warner-Bratsler
shear machine was obtained from the center of the gluteus
medius before it was sliced. This sample was cut with a
sharp metal cylinder by using a rotating motion along the
grain of the meat. The samples were 1-inch in diameter and
about 2% inches long. The samples were individually wrapped
in heavy aluminum foil and placed with the reset from which

they were cut.

Preparation of the roasts for freezing

The muscles from which shear samples were removed were

sliced on an electric Globe slicer, Model 150. The gauge

ho

was set at h.5 for slicing samples about 5/8-inch in thick-
ness. The slices were arranged as cut and each roast was
reassembled to approximate its original shape. The aluminum
foil was molded and pressed around the roast to make an
air-tight covering. Each foil-covered roast was wrapped in
a polyethylene bag from which as much air as possible was
excluded. The package was secured with strong cord which
also held the identification tag. After they were wrapped,
the cooked roasts were placed in a sharp freezer at -22°C

for one week. They were then stored at ~16OC.
Reheating the heat

When the roasts were removed from the freezer, the
polyethylene bags were removed but the foil was left on
the roasts. The next consideration was the length of time
necessary to bring the roasts to a desirable temperature
for serving. Because no instructions for this procedure
had been established by previous investigators, preliminary
tests were made to determine the length of the reheating

process for bringing the roasts to serving temperature.
Trial investigations

A trial run was made to determine the length of re—

heating time for frozen and defrosted roasts in the oven

t1

and a steamer with 7 pounds of steam pressure. Two roasts
were removed from the freezer 28 hours before reheating
time and were placed in a refrigerator at «6°C. Two roasts
were removed from the freezer immediately before they were
reheated. Each roast was placed in an aluminum pan similar

to those used for the roasting process.

Time necessary for reheating. It was found that the frozen
sample reheated in the oven at 205°C required 2 hours and
25 minutes to reach a desirable temperature for serving;
the sample reheated in the Steam Chef required 2 hours and
50 minutes. The defrosted sample reheated in the same even
required 1 hour and 15 minutes; the sample reheated in the

Steam Chef required 1 hour and 35 minutes.

Orienting the fiudges. A practice period was arranged for the
Judges to acquaint them with the scoring methods. They were
given typed instructions as well as an oral introduction to
the taste panel procedure. The Judges were assigned places
at different tables so they were not tempted to converse
during the taste panel sessions. At the preliminary meeting
they scored four samples which had been reheated according

to procedures derived from the trial run. This gave them a
chance to ask questions regarding the taste panel procedure.
A cepy of the written instructions used is included in the

Appendix.

The oral instructions were primarily concerned with the
tenderness table. The Judges were asked to cut a piece of
a specified size from each slice of meat and to chew it
until it was completely masticated. They recorded the
number of chews required and also assigned numerical tender-
ness scores for each of the four samples. The investigator
compiled a tenderness table for each.Judge based on the
scores and number of chews recorded for these samples. These
individual tendernessurange cards were used by each Judge
for scoring all samples for tenderness throughout this in-

vestigation.

Test Procedures

Four replications of the reheating procedures studied
constituted this investigation. Each of the four methods
of reheating together with a control was tested each time.
The procedure for cooking the control roasts was the same
as that used for the initial cooking of the precooked,
frozen roasts. The frozen roasts were reheated at the end

of L weeks of frozen storage.

Preparation of samples

The reheating of the roasts for the taste panel was

done at the same time and on the same day of the week for

#3

four consecutive weeks. Thus the first three groups of
roasts were tested four weeks after they were frozen. Due
to circumstances which disqualified the roasts originally
planned for the fourth series of tests, the roasts used

for this were in frozen storage for five weeks. Five coded
samples of meat were prepared for the panel members at each
meeting. Each judge received the slice cut from the same

position in the roast for every sample.

Shear force tests

Tenderness was objectively measured on the Warner-
Bratzler shear machine. This shearing apparatus measures
the pounds of force required for the blade to cut through
a sample of meat, 1-inch in diameter, prepared according to
standard procedure. Three tests were made on a cylinder

of cooked meat from each roast.

Subjective tests

The six judges scored a sample from each roast which
was out from the same muscle as were the samples for the
shear force tests. Each judge had the written suggestions
for scoring and her own tenderness table for reference. The
scoring was based on a scale ranging from 1 to 10 for aroma,

flavor, tenderness, and juiciness. Descriptive terms for

uu

aroma and flavor were listed for the judges to designate
their reason for rating any sample lower than seven.

After counting the number of chews, each judge recorded it
and then checked her own tenderness-range table to assign

a tenderness score.

1+5

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The results of this study represent only the beginning
of work needed in this area of research. Statistical calcu-
lations were not attempted because of the small number of
samples studied. Graphs and tables were constructed to aid

in interpreting the results.

Palatability Factors

Palatability was considered the most important criterion
for evaluating the effects of methods of reheating the roasts.
Aroma, flavor, tenderness and juiciness were the palatability
characteristics judged. Often appearance and texture are also
studied in investigations of this kind. They were omitted
from this study because the quality and the initial internal
temperature of the roasts were constant factors throughout
the investigation. Therefore, appearance and texture were

expected to vary only slightly among the samples.

Aroma and flavor

Aroma and flavor are very closely associated palatability
factors. Some investigators feel that aroma is more important
than flavor, but it is difficult to separate them in the tasting

process. The average scores for aroma and flavor are shown in

14,6

Table l and on Figures 1 and 2. The flavor of the control
received the highest score. Aroma scores did not appear to
be closely correlated with flavor scores. The frozen roasts
reheated in the oven without preliminary defrosting were

scored the lowest. The long period of time necessary for

Table 1. Average aroma and flavor scores

 

Oven Steamer

Control Defrosted Frozen Defrosted Frozen

 

APOmI 6eh 6eh 5e5 7e? 6e?
Flavor 7e5 6.0 LeB 6e? 6.}

reheating these reacts in the oven may have caused the aroma
and flavor of these samples to become undesirable. Adjectives
used by the judges to describe the samples were warmed-over,
old, strong, burned, and washed-out. All of the samples,
including the controls, received a few of these adjectives
except burned. Burned taste and odor was used by two of the
judges to describe several samples of the frozen roasts re-
heated in the oven. The judges preferred the flavor and aroma
of the roasts which were reheated in the steamer to those

reheated in the oven.

 

AROMA SCORES

 

 

J
‘1

1+7

Steamer Defrosted

-. E
- -

  
  
  

 

Oven Frozen .\\

Replications:

I II III
J l J

Figure 1. Average aroma scores.

' ' e . ”.‘(OVOn

Defrosted

 

 

 

11.8

   

 

 

 

Br
8- Control
P
7 ... Steamer Defrosted
“*r-~-~ -\‘j----—~-- \
\\‘ ‘~\‘
\\\ “~s‘
\ \
6 __ o. x
' . , x ‘ ‘fisgfmofirosen
V) ,be/ \-\ ..... ... ...°‘-.,\‘\
E / / . ...H'K. .. 0.
° /' \. Oven Defrosted
u . \.
’ \ v2 5 ,._ ./ \.
c: \
° \ Oven Frozen
>
< C
—' \
0.1+ .
F" \
\
\
3 ~— \
\O
\
\
__2 _ .
Replications:
;» I II III IV
S #1 1 n

 

as?‘ Figure 2. Average flavor scores.

h9

Tenderness and shear force

The average scores for tenderness according to the taste
panel and the shear force readings are shown in Table 2 and
Figures 3 and h. The judges scored the control highest, but
the shear force readings indicated no correlation between the
scores and shear force. This may have been attributable to the
presence of hidden connective tissue in some of the shear
force samples. The frozen roasts reheated in the oven received
the least desirable average scores. The high shear force
readings may be partially explained by the presence of a heavy
brown crust on shear samples from roasts reheated in the even
without preliminary defrosting. This crust formed on most of
the shear force samples during reheating in the oven even

though the samples were wrapped in foil. No crust was formed

Table 2. Average tenderness scores and shear
force readings'

Oven Steamer
Control Defrosted Frozen Defrosted Frozen
Taste panel 6.5 6.2 5.6 6.h 6.1
Shear force 20.7 20.9 2h.5 18.2 18.8

 

on the samples which were reheated in the steamer. The ex-
terior of all the roasts reheated in the oven became crusted

to varying degrees on all sides. There appeared to be little

v.

 

'TENDERNESS SCORES

 

 

So

Oven Defrosted

- -'3, Control

     
 

 

\
--s.
Steamer
'\\ Frozen

Oven Frozen
\\ 2’

\e
\e
\

Replications

I II III IV
I I I I

Figure 5. Average tenderness scores.

 

 

 

51

7V" ‘

1
10‘... \. (Oven Frozen

\ e

\ e
\
.\\.
\fSteamer \ Steamer Frozen

15 _ \ Defrosted

\ \ Oven Defrosted'

\ . ‘53

 

 

 

20;.
:325 _
Z
a
d:
3
‘3 3d-
0!.
8.
\ f
3% 3i. \ /
\ ./
\ /
no; \ j
\ /‘
\ f
.5- - /
h \ .
.\/
Replications:
I II III Iv
J J - v a 1

L.

Figure II. Average shear force readings.

52

difference between the average tenderness scores and the shear
force readings for the control and the samples reheated in the
steamer and those defrosted and reheated in the oven.

It was interesting to note that scores of the Judges
showed more consistency for tenderness than for other palat-
ability factors. Consistent scoring was more evident for
tenderness of individual roasts prepared by each method than
for aroma, flavor, or juiciness. The tenderness-range table
deve10ped for each.judge probably had same influence on the

uniformity of the tenderness scores.
Juiciness

The average scores for Juiciness are shown in Table 3 and
Figure 5. The control samples received the highest average
score. These findings agree with other studies, (1, 29, 65, 71),
with regard to the general statement that meat becomes drier
with prolonged heating. The samples reheated in the even begin-

ing at the frozen stage received the lowest average score.

Table 5. Average juiciness scores.

 

Oven steamer

Control Defrosted Frozen Defrosted Frozen

 

Juiciness 7.h 5.1 3.6 5.7 5.8

 

53

 

 

 

9..
F‘
Control
8s.
7__
‘\ Steamer Frozen
u: \‘~ —"~\
u: zlez"” ‘\~\ ,’
d 6"— z' \‘ \\ /
o \\ \ I
U ‘s‘ \ ’
n \\ \\ //
‘x \A’
V, e ° 0 \ /
m K......... 0a..\.\... / \\
“’ 5L_ Oven Defrosted ‘\ "oo....vf......L§x
z \ ,
‘I C ' \\\ /
S '/. \.\° \V’ St Def ted
., .// a \\ eamer ros
/’ ‘\ \
Lu— ./ - \
\gu"0ven-Frozen
\
3__ \
- \
2 Replications: '\
I TI III IV
1 I I L

 

Figure 5. Average Juiciness scores.

The other three methods of reheating the roasts had scores
which seemed quite similar. The scores for the steamer methods
appeared to be slightly better than the score obtained for the
defrosted roasts which were reheated in the oven. However,

the range between the high, low, and medium scores seemed
great. A partial explanation for this may be the evidence

that volatile losses for the original roasting of the controls
were from 2 to 3 per cent lower than these losses of the other
roasts.

Studies, (67 and 73). showed that meat cooked with moist
heat was drier than oven-cooked meat. The scores for beef
reheated in the steamer did not substantiate those findings.
The full wrapping on the roasts reheated in the steamer appar-
ently kept than moist whereas the foil wrapping on the roasts
reheated in the oven appeared to have little effect on moisture

retention.
Cooking height Losses

Heavy cooking losses are undesirable because they result
in a smaller number of servings from the cooked meat. It
was interesting to compare the results with other studies
because these roasts were average market products with no data
recorded concerning the cattle from which they were taken.
Cooking losses were also considered to be a possible means of

clarifying juiciness scores which were obtained.

55

Total cooking losses

Total cooking losses for each roast are recorded in Table h
in the Appendix. The average total cooking loss for the twenty
roasts was 32.91 per cent. lasuda (71) reported total cooking
loss of 35.3 per cent at 80°C and Dunnigan (t2) reported 12.63
per cent at 70°C. The roasts and procedures of these two studies

were comparable to those reported in this investigation.
Volatile cooking losses

Volatile cooking losses for each roast are recorded in
Table h in the Appendix. The average volatile cooking losses
for the twenty roasts was 22.39 per cent. Masada (71) re-
ported volatile cooking losses for sirloin butts, Choice grade
‘as 29.5. Both sets or roasts were cooked to an internal

temperature of 80°C.
Dripping losses

Dripping losses for each roast are recorded in Table h
in the Appendix. The average dripping losses for the twenty
roasts was 10.93. Hasuda (71) reported dripping losses for
sirloin butts, Choice grade, at 5.8. Both sets of roasts were
cooked to an internal temperature of 80°C. There is probably

more than one reason for this difference in per cent of dripping

56

1035. The extent of aging may be different for the two groups
of roast.. There may have also been a fiifference in the amount

of fat in the cuts used.
Time Required to Reach Certain Internal icmocraturee

o

The time required to reach 60°C, 73°C, and CO C for each
roast is included in Table A in the Appendix. The average
time for the twenty roasts was as follows: 18.51 minute: per

.1. .. 'e on a $- 0

pound Jo recon 60 c, 22.¢5 minutes per pound to reach 70 C,
and 28,35 minutes per p and to reach 80°C;

Lowe (56) pointed out that time of cooking in terms of
minutes per pound could serve only as a partial guide because

.1"

the following factors afiect the time requ ed to cook the

p.
’1

meet: (a) the method of cookinfi; (b) 4-'he cooking temgereture;
(0) weight, surface area, and the shortest distance to the
center of the thickest partion of the meet; (d) the stage of
donenese to which the meet is cooked; (e) the composition of
the meet; (3) the degree of post mortem changes; and (5) the

initial temperature of the meat.

fi

57

SUhtARY AND COEEEETS

The primary objective of this study was to compare the
effect of various methods of reheating on the palatability of
frozen, precooked roast beef. The palatability scores for
aroma, flavor, tenderness, and Juiciness of the freshly roasted
beef were not equalled by scores of any of the methods used for
reheating precooked roasts in this study. The beef reheated
in the oven at 20h°0, from the frozen stage, was definitely
undesirable. The palatability scores for the other three
methods indicated that these methods may offer possibilities
worth modification and further study.

The second objective of this study was to discover the
length of time required to reheat the frozen,prccooked meat.

In each case the time required was too long to make the method
practical for use as an emergency measure in institution food
service. The time for reheating roasts in the steamer was a
few minutes longer than the time required to reheat roasts in
the oven.

Improved results might be obtained if the meat were frozen
in smaller packages. The shorter time required to reheat small
packages would make the process more practical and also might
result in a more palatable product. A decrease in oven temper-
ature of at least 25 degrees might also prevent the formation
of the brown crust and reduce the drying effect of reheating

the roasts.

0

58

There are many other possible methods for reheating
roast beef. The best method for retaining palatability may
not have been included in this study. Much more work needs
to be done to discover the best possible way to preserve the

quality characteristics of freshly roasted beef.

Q‘.

”A

6.

7.

8.

10.

LITERATURE CITED

Aldrich, P.J. and Lows, B. Comparison of grades of beef
rounds. J. Am. Diet. Assn. 50: 59-h}. 195k.

Alexander, L.m. Shrinkage and heat penetration during
the roasting of lamb and mutton as influenced by
carcass grade, ripening period and cooking method.
v.5. Dept. Agr. Bu. the 25-25. 193h.

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

Alexander, L.M. and Clark, N.G. Shrinkage and cooking
time of rib roasts and beef of different grades as
influenced by-style of cutting and method of
roasting. v.3. Dept. Agr. Tech. Bul. 676. 1959.

Approach to the panel studies of foods and the need for
standardization. Food Tech. 8: 500-506. 19Sh.

Baker, G.A., Amerine, M.A. and Roessler, E.B. Errors
of the second kind in organoleptic difference
testing. Food Res. 19 206-210. 195k.

Barbella, N.G., Tanner, B. and Johnson, T.G. Relation-
ships of flavor and juiciness of beef to fatness
and other factors. Proc. Am. Soc. Animal Prod.

52: 520-525. 1939.

Bate-Smith, E.C. Organoleptio tests in the food industry.
Soc. Chem. Indus. Jour. 66: 70-60. 19h9.

Bevier, I. and Sprague, E.C. Roasting of beef. Ill.
Agra FXpta Sta. Cir. 710 1905a

Black, W.H., Hiner, R.L., Burk, L.B., Alexander, L.M.,
and Wilson, C.V. Beef production and quality as
affected by method of feeding supplements to steers
on grass in the Appalachian region. U.S. Dept.
Agr. Tech. Bul. 717. 19ho.

11.

12.

15.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

25.

so

Black, W.H., Warner, K.F., and Wilson, C.V. Beef production
and quality as affected by grade and steer feeding
grain supplement. U.S. Dept. Agr. Tech. Bul. 217. 1951.

Blanchard, E.L. and Maxwell, h.L. Correlation of subjective
scoring with sugar content of frozen peas. Food
Res. 6: 105-115. 19L1.

Bogps, h.M. and Hanson, H.L. Analysis of food by sensory
difference tests. Advances in Food Res. 2: 219-256.

19h9.

Boyden, Re, Gilpin, GOLO’ HOOD, Hope, Cartwright, LOCO
Committee report: qualifications of panel members.
In Dawson, E.C. and Harris, B.L. Sensory methods of
measuring differences in food quality. U.S. Dept.
Agr. Inf. Bul. 5k: 71-72. 1951.

Bradley, J.E. Influence of continued testing on preference
ratings. In Food acceptance testing methodology.
Chicago. Quartermaster Food and Container Institute
for the Armed Forces. p. 92-99. l95h.

Branaman, G.A., Rankine, 0.0., and Alexander, L.m. The
relation of degree of finish in cattle to production
and meat flavors. Proc. Am. Soc. Animal Prod. 29:

295-500. 1956.

Bratzler, L.J. Measuring the tenderness of meat by means
of a mechanical shear. Unpublished v.3. Thesis.
Manhattan, Kansas. Kansas State College Library. 1952.

Bull, S. Meat for the table. 1st ed. N.Y. Ne Grew
Hill Book Co., Inc. p. 1-95. 1951.

Child, A.h. Selection and use of pork cuts. Minn. Agr.
EXpts Sta. Enle 25h. 1929a ‘

Child, A.M. and Baldelli, M. Press fluid from heated beef
mus01.e Ja Agr. 8330 L8: 1127-115hs 195“.

Child, A.M. and Esteros, G. A study of the juiciness and
flavor of standing and rolled beef rib roasts.
Jo Home Econ. 29: 183’1870 1957.

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

Child, A.h. and Satorius, M.J. Effect of exterior
temperature upon the press fluid, shear force, and
cooking losses of roasted beef and pork muscles.

Jo Agr. H630 573 865'8710 19580

 

 

h)
4::-
O

25.

26.

27.

50.

51.

52.

35°

35-

36.

61

Clark, R.K. and Van Duync, F.0. Cooking losses, tender-
ness, palatability, and thiamine and riboflavin
content of beef as affected by roasting, pressure
saucepan cooking, and broiling. Food Res. 1h:
221-2500 19kg.

Clark, H. 3., Wilmeth, K.C., Harrison, D.L., and
Vaile, G.E. The effect of braising and pressure
saucepan cookery on the cooking losses, palatability
and nutritive value of proteins of round steaks.
Food Res. 20: 55-u1. 1955.

Cline, J.A. and Foster, R. The effect of oven temper-
ature on beef roasts. Mo. Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul.

52:. 1955.

Cline, J.A., Lnughead, M.E., and Schwartz, 5.0. The
effect of two roasting temperatures on palatability
and cooking losses of roasts. ho. Agr. EXpt. Sta.
Eul. 5100 19520

Cline, J.A. and Lesbitt, C. The effect of cooking upon
the composition and serving value of beef. Mo.
Agr. Empt. Sta. Bul. 570. 1956.

Cline, JeAs, TTOWbridfie, EeAe, FOSter, HeTe, and Fry, HeEe
How certain methods of cooking affect the quality
and palatability of beef. to. Apr. EXpt. Sta. Bul.

295. 1950.

Cover, S. Effect of metal skewers on cooking time and
tenderness of beef. Food Res. 6: 255-25d. l9hl.

Cover, 8. Effect of extremely low rates of heat, enetra-
tion on tenderness of beef. Food Res. 6: 5C'-59h.

19h;-

Cover, 3. The effect of temperature and time of cooking
on tenderness of roasts. Texas Agr. Expt. Sta.
Bul. 5&2. 1957.

Cover, 3. A new subjective method of testing tenderness
in meat - the paired-eating method. Food Res. 1:

287-2950 1956s

Crist, J.W. and Seaton, }.L. Reliability of organoleptic
tests. Food Res. 6: 529-556. l9hl

Crocker E.C. Flavor. N.Y. McCraw-Hill Book Co., Inc.

1965-

Crocker, 3.0. Measuring food flavors. Food Res. 2:

275-286. 1957.

37-

('3
5c.

59-

.ho.

hl.

Davis, J.G. and Hanson, H.L. Sensory test methods. I.
The triangle intensity and related test systems for
sensory analysis. Food Tech. 8: 555-558. 195k.

Day, 3.6. Longissimus dorSi of three grades of beef;
comparison of booking weight 10$:33, palatability,
and edible portion. Unpublished m.s. Thesis,

East Lansing, hichigan. Michigan State University
Library. 1955. -

Deatherage, F.E. and Garnatiz, G. A comparative study
of tenderness determination by sensory panel and
by shear strength measurements. Food Tech. 6:
260-262. 1952.

Deatheridge, F.C. and Rieman, w. Measurement of beef
tenderness and tenderization of beef by the
Tenderay process. Food Res. 11: 525-55h. 19h6.

Dove, W.F. Food acceptability: its determination and
evaluation. Food Tech. 1: 59-50. 19h7.

Dunnigan, J.H. A study of palatability and price of
two grades of sirloin butts. Unpublished M.S.
Thesis. East Lansing, Michigan. hichigan State
University Library. l9h5.

Flavor in foods (symposium). Food Indus. 9: 5lh-5l5,
5&6. 1957-

Foster, D. Approaches to the panel study of foods and
the need for standardization. Food Tech. 6: 5. l95h.

Foster, D., Pratt, C., and Schwartz, N. Variation in
flavor Judfifients in a group situation. Food Res.

20: 659-6 . 1955.

Green, 6.3. Orgznoleptic tests in the food industry.
Chem. and Indus. 27: 567. 19L9.

Grindley, 3.5., McCormack, 3., and Porter, H.C.
Experiments on losses in cooking meat. U.S. Dept.
Agr. Offs I’LXPte :ta. Bill. 1020 19010

Grindley, H.S. and Mojonnier, T. Experiments on losses
in cooking meat. U.S. Dept. Agr. Off. Expt. Sta.
Bul. 1&1. 1905.

Griswold, R.M. and Wharton, M.A. Effect of storage
conditions on palatability of beef. Food Res. 6:

517'SZYo 19h1o

fl

..llr

50.

51.

59-

6o.

61.

62.

Halliday, E.G. “Objective tests for cooked food. Food
Res. 2: 2o7-268. 1957.

Rankine, 0.6. Quality in meat and meat products. Ind.
Eng. Chem. 5: 220-225. 1945. '

Hankins, 0.0. and Ellis, 3.2. Pat in relation to quantity
and quality factors of meat animal carcasses. Pros.
AM. SOCe Animal PTOde 521 51%9 1939e

Harrison, D.L. Shrink, rate of heat transfer, and
palatability of beef cooked at the same temperature
in air, steam, water, and fat. Unpublished M.S.
Thesis. Ames, Iowa. Iowa State College Library. l9h5.

Harrison, 3. and Elder, L.W. Some applications of
statistics to laboratory taste testing. Food Tech.

h: 3h-h59- 1950-

Harrison, E.L., Lowe, 3., ncClurg, fi.R., and Shearer, P.S.
Physical, organoleptic, and histological changes in
three rades of beef during aging. Food Tech. 5:
28h'28 e l9h9e I

Harrison, D.L., Vail, 6.3., and Kalen, J. Precooked
frozen stews and Swiss steak. Food Tech. 7: l59-lhl.

1953-

Helser, M.D., Kelson, P.h., and Lose, B. Influence of
the animal's age upon the quality and palatability
of beef. Iowa Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 272. 1950.

Hiner, R.L. and Hankins, 0.6. Temperature of freezing
affects tenderness of beef. Food Ind. 19: 1078-
1081. 19h?-

Hiner, R.L., Gaddis, A.a., and Hankins, 0.0. Effect 6:
methods of protection on palatability of freezer-
storcd meat. Food Tech. 5: 225-229. 1951.

Hotsling, N. and Fenton, F. Cereal extended ground pork
meat loaves: their palatability._ J. Home Econ.
57: 629-653. 19t5.

Howe, P.E. and Barbells, N.G. The flavor of meat and
meat products. Food Res. 2: 197-202. 1957.

Ischler, N.H., Laue, E.A. and Janisch, A.J. Reliability

3f taste testing and consumer testing. Food Tech.

9: 539-591- 195k-

 

66.

67.

7o.

71.

72.

73.

7&-

6L

Latske, E. Roast beef, rare, medium, or well done. Agr.
Extcn. Div. Ne Dak. Agr. COle Ciro 96o 1950a

Latske, E. Standardizing methods of roasting beef in
esperimental cookery. N. Dak. Agr. EXpt. Sta. Bul.
2A2. 1950.

Laue, h.A., Ischler, N.H., and Bullman, G.A. Reliability
of taste testing and consumer testing nethods. I.
Fatigue in taste testing. Food Tech. 6: 587-388.

195h-

Lowe, 3. Experimental cookery. hth ed. N.Y. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc. p. 192-251. 1955.

Lowe, 8., Grain, E., Amick, G., Riedesel, E., Peat, L.J.,
Smith, F.B., McClurg, B.R., and Shearer, P.S.
Defrosting and cooking frozen meat. Iowa State Col.
Agr. Expt. Sta. Res. Bul. BbS. 1952.

Lowe, B. and Stewart, G. F. Subjective and objective tests
as food research tools with special reference to
poultry meat. Food Tech. 1: 30-56. l9h7.

hockey, A.O. and Jones, P. Selection of members of a
food tasting panel: dicernment of primary tastes in
water solution compared with judging ability.for foods.
Food Tech. 8: 527-530. 19st.

Mackintosh, D.L., Hall, J.L., Pittman, E.S., and Vail, G.E.
heat investigations at the Kansas State Experiment
Station. Kansas Sta. Bien. Rpt. p. 78-65. 1955-36.

Easuda, o.m. Tender cuts of three grades of beef: effect
of extent of cooking on weight losses and cost.
Unpublished M.S. Thesis. East Lansing, Kichigan.
Richigan State University Library. 1955.

Moran, T., and Smith, E.C. Post-mortem changes in
animal tissues. The conditioning or ripening of
beef. Great Britain Dept. Scientific Ind. has.
Food Investigations Board. Spec. Rpt. No. 26. 1929.

Morgan, A.F. and Nelson, P.M. A study of certain factors
affecting the shrinkage and speed in the roasting
of meat. J. Home Econ. 1o: 371-570, tut-tie. 1926.

Noble, I.T., Halliday, E.G., and Klaae, H.K. Studies on
tenderness and juicineee of cooked meat. J. Home
Econ. 26: 255-2420 193“.

75-

76.

79-
80.
51.

82.

85.

BL.

85.

86.

87.

Overxan, A. and Li, J.C.R. Iepcndability of food judges
as indicated by an analysis of scores of a food
tasting panel. Food Res. 15: LL1-LL9. 19L8.

Paul, I. and Child, A.L'. Ifi'cct of freezing and thawing
beei muscles upon press iluid, losses, and tender-
ness. £-’ood Res. 2: 559- 5L7. 1957.

Paul,?., Lo~e, E., and icClur9:, :.R. Chanwes in
histolazical structure and palataoility of beef
dur! ng storage. Food Res. 9: 221-255. 19LL.

Perot, L. -aste fancl ts . Kati. Provisioner. 121:
12-150 19+9e

Percan, 3.3. and Girardot, H.F. Advanced taste-test
k, - | 7- 'o -—« 3 r\‘ ’1 , ’
method. iOOU Lnginecring. ch: So-él. 19Ld.

Peryam, D.R. and Swartz, V.W. ltoasurement of sensory
differences. Food Tech. L: 59 0-595. 1950.

Pfaffman, C. Variables affecting different tests. In
Food acceptance testing methodology. Chdeago.
Quartermaster Food and Container Institute for the
Armed Forces. p. L-17. 19st.

Proctor, B. E., Davison, S., talecki G. J.,and Welch, m.
A recording strain-gage denture tenderometer for
foods. Food Tech. 9: L71-L77. 1955.

Ramsbottom, J.M. Ircezer storage effect on fresh meat
quality. Refrig. Eng. 55: 19-250 1947.

Ramsbottom, J.m. and Strandine, E.J. Comparative
tenderness and identification of muscles in
wholesale beef cuts. Food Res. 15: 515-550. 19L8.

Ramsbottom, 3.9. and Strandine, E.J. Initial physical
and chemical changes in beef as related to tenderness.
Proc. Am. Soc. Animal Prod. J. Animal Sci. 7:
(abstract) 519. 19th. ,

Satorius, h.J. and Child, A.a. Effect of coagulation on
press fluid, shear force, muscle-cell diameter, and
com osition of beef muscle. Food Res. 5: 619-626.

195 .

Satorius, M.J. and Child, A.E. ffect of cut, grade, and
class upon palatability and composition of beef ‘
roaatae Minn. Agr. EXpte Sta. TQChe BUIO 1310 19580

88.

92.

95.

99.

66

S,nlosberg, H. Selection and training of panels. In
F000 acceptance testing methodblogy. Chicago.
Quartermaster Food and Container Institute for the
Armed Forces. pe u5-5ue lgfihe

Sixpson, 3.1. and Chang, I.C.L. Effect of low freezer
storage temperature and wrapping material on the
quality of frozen meats. Iood Tech. 5: 2L6-252.
1Q5Q.

Sjostron, L.R. and Cairncross, $.F. that makes flavor
leadership? Food Tech. 7: 56-50. 1955.

Strandine, E.J., Koonz, C.H. and Ramsbottom, J.L. A
study in the variations in muscles of beef and
chicken.. J. Animal Sc. 8: qu-L9L. 19L9.

Sweetman, N.D. The scientific study of the palatability
of food. J. Home Econ. 25: 161-172. 1951.

Tanner, 8., Clark, N.G., and Rankine, O.C. Kechsnical
determination of uiciness of meat. J. Agr. Res.
66: L03-L12. 1945.

Terry, K.F., Bradley, R.A., and Davis, L.L. New designs
and techniques for organoleptic testing. Iood Tech.
6: 25o-25L. 1952.

Thillo, M., Williamson, L.J., and Iorgan, A.F. The
effect of fat on shrinkage and epeed in roasting
beef. J. Home Econ. 2L: 720-757. 1952.

Thurstone, L.L. Some new psychophysical methods. In
Food acceptance testing methodoloyy. Chicago.
Quartermaster Food and Container Institute for the
Armed_For068. p. lOO-lOL. 195h0

Voil, G.E. and O'Neill, L. Certain factors which effect
the palatability and cost of roast beef served in
institutions. J. Am. Diet. Assn. l5: 5L-59. 1957.

Wierbicki, E., Kunkle, L.E., Cahill, 3., and Dcatherage,
F.E. Post mortem changes in meat and their possible
relation to tenderness together with some comparisons
of meat from heifers, bulls, steers, and diethyl-
stilbestrol treated bulls and steers. Food Tech.

10: 80-85. 1956.

Wood, C.D. Meats: composition and cooking. U.S. Dept.
Agr. Expt. Sta. Farmers HUI. 5h. lbgée

67

APPENDIX

68

Table A Percentage of cogking losses and time required to
roast meat to 60 C, 70 C, and 60°C internal temperature

 

 

 

Code Volatile Drip Total Minutes per pound
No. Loss Loss Lose
60°C 70°C 80°C
N17 18.29 11. 9 29.88 18.75 25.21 50.5h
55h 22.86 11.§5 55.57 22.76 22.09 5h.05
L27 20.71 12. 6 52.1h 21.1h 2 .8 55.20
x8h 21.gu 12.20 52.95 20-h9 2h. 51.22
Average 20. 0 12009 52015
088 25.80 7-7h 52.90 16.10 19.81 2h.88
281 27.6 9.21 56.18 1 .57 21.05 25. 8
R75 22.13 7.86 29.29 1 -7h 20.92 29. 0
211 17.9 .66 27.39 19.75 25.61 29.68
Average 25.5 .62 510 9
B29 18.hZ 1h.6 58.22 18.87 16.h0 2h-05
K57 . 27.1 12.9 58.69 1 .50 19. 5 23.69
F10 20.95 8.78 29.7 1 .20 25. 5 2 .97
N95 22.70 8.51 26.2 21. 7 26.55 51.52
Average 22.52 11.25 55027
I 5 22.60 1 .69 5 .62 15.5 18.06 2 .52
132 27.17 3.85 52.%2 16.15 20.gt .7
B56 19.85 12.50 51. 2 20.55 2h. 2 51.1“
B15 20.5 7.28 29.1h 20.25 2h.90 50.85
Average 22.5 10085 53020 -
21 2 .hh 11.2u 6.0 11. 0 1u.86 2 .00
T7 ZZ-Ih 15.6 £9.28 17.27 20. h 23.56
Y12 20.27 12.1 51.76 19.02 2 .25 29.;3
F51 19.87 10.90 50.72 20.50 2 .82 29.
Average 22.95 11.99 Bh-h
Total
Average 22.59 10.95 52.91 18.51 22.25 28.55
The date in this table were recorded at the initial

roasting period. No records were kept of the losses due to

freezing and reheating after the initial roasting period.

59

Table 5 Average scores for aroma, flavor, tenderness,
shear force, and Juiciness for each roast.

 

 

methods Code Aroma Flavor Tender— Shear Juioi-
of No. nees force neee
Reheating
Control NIX 6.5 6.8 h.g 32.8 6.8
S .0 O O O 0
L37 2.2 7.§ 6.8 20.L 6.6
288 8.0 7. 7.5 1L.7 7.6
Average 6.h 7.5 .5 20.7 7.
Ove
Defgosted 083 6.7 7.2 5.2 26.2 5.2
. 281 6.2 5.8 5.7 2%.0 5.0
:21: 2'3 5-3 2-2 11.-g 23
Average 628 2.0 6.2 20:9 5.1
0 e
FZOZOH B29 505 500 5.0 22.6 hoo
K57 5.5 2.0 5.2 h7.0 2.0
5:8 3'3 5'3 3-3 17-2 123
Average V 5:5 3:5_ 5:6 28:5 3:6
Steamer 6 g 6 b _
DefTOSted I 5 e} 02 50 180 0
A32 8.2 6.8 5.7 26.3 2.;
33% 5'2 6'3 6'3. F'S Le"?
Average 7:7 6:7 6:h l :2 5:7
Steamer 6 8 6 8 8 6
Frozen Zl . .7 2. l .5 .5
T . 6.‘ .8 21. 6.0
YZE 6.; 5.7 .8 17. 5.0
2
F51 6.5 6.0 .0 17.8 5.8
Average 6.7 6.5 6.1 18. 5.8

l.

2.

7.

8.

7O

GUIDE FOR IASTE PANEL

Smell each sample first and score aroma.
Rate each sample as you test it.
Do not change rating once it has been made.

Keep hands away_to avoid everupresent skin odors from interferring
with Judgment.

Be careful to avoid comparing samples with.your own preferences.
Tasting should be done slowly. Allow at least one minute before

determining score. Take a sip of water and‘wait another minute
before beginning next sample

Use sample size cut from approximately same position in each
slice. Count number of chews necessary to masticate it com-
131 at 61y 0

Please do not exhhange Opinions or comments with other panel members.

(If

 

71

m . 1, 1 . i
a -. i -
. 1 “magma a 22m "
w in ha in Sea .- M ...: some 83. 283. Jam-Eons
w haeaohpxm mnm> . “ monpw mamamamvoz kn86> mamaehpxm ~ W
W M M .. .. - i - - W
1 W _ _
W . _ a .
a a _
M macho mmdoa mmsoe m wmdqfiz mead seduce amusoa mmmzmeZMB
.... ml . .1- 31
ho Monaura- haoamafinm 30> m swoop”. m gum-mm M Medusa maomvmamga .8989 hawk, inmost-J
e- pzouoenmmsg. ...... H .w w m: . . :..w..-- fi:;3;;. w..-§:. -;;;-:-:-fl. -4
am>0udoahm31§§. m _ m m w w
3;: . M M . a 5;: h
Umpcwmp . m mmsqfiz m mdam W ”
causes-ét- ornmafimoqu_ Noammnwmmom 51411111; :zltiiI-mmanmaflmmm mammawmmg_ m
Ema--..-.- mSe-Smmeé 3.533 M ass-82 36-838 means-Swen imam-882 638863 20.8» m beams-tam” moiaa
hmamw:iti ~ m m m _
_ _ w
dao4ié- . m w W
”5 _ r. ...:1- . ...v...
mm>o|cmahmkaié. m m
wqoapm-z ; . - ........ - w
6H0 ............ . . _ _ Ways? mad-Hm” m
modes ........ wapmnumodns mammaflmom m mapmnumma mammaflmmm <20m<
38-8 ...-.... mane-Smog: .23me Hes-:82 36-833 mane-flame hie-882 mag-seamen is, 36886-68
mama-2mm H H m m a m m a w m 0H moses-a

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

930% op mcfimammma an macaw Hooflnmssc opmowwnH

.h Scams moapmfiaopomamno ommnp mmoom 30% ha macaw one ao>man mom mahmp m>HpmHmomod mpmflpmoammm Moose wmmoam

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.mmmmmmvcmp Moons mSmno Mo amnfisq oncoma can PqSOo mmmoam

mamdom mom Bmmmm mmoom

.mmocaevcmp Mom quwa encom :30

.m

.¢

. I'll‘l'li‘lallll ‘allfill‘ -.. ." 1,6. '3 -II'

"WQOfiPosapmcH Hmhoflmw

M IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII

llJiIHilll-‘jJIZIJMI-HWI!IllWIlWl-HII'IHJHIHII

02237 2282