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 cJClRC/DateDuopes-sz

 

USDA CHOICE, GOOD, AND COMMERCIAL GRADES or
FOUR LOW-TO-MEDIUM PRICE BEEF ROASTS:
cooxmo LOSSES, YIELD, FALATABILITY, AND 0091'

BY

Armina Kolmer

AN ABSTRACT

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

MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Institution Administration

1960/

. /
Approved / 76/} I.»;..- /

__‘__

Armina Kolmer

ABSTRACT

USDA Choice, Good, and Commercial grades of arm,
heel of round, top round, and sirloin roasts were cooked at
a constant oven temperature of 11490 C. The arm, heel of
round, and top round were roasted in covered pans to an
internal temperature of 88° c, and the sirloin was roasted
in an uncovered pan to an internal temperature of 82° C.
Records were made of the uncooked weight, cooked weight,
weight and measure of drippings, and the weight of sliceable
meat, edible and inedible scrap. The cooked beef was scored
for color, flavor, appearance, texture, Juiciness, and
tenderness by a panel of eleven Judges. HarneréBratzler
shear tests were also used for determining tenderness.

Analyses of variance of codking losses, yield,
palatability, and shear force readings were used to deter-
mine whether there were significant differences among the
four cuts and three grades of roasts. The results indi-
cated that the'total cooking losses for the sirloin and
heel ofround roasts were lower than the total cooking
losses for the arm and top round roasts. The sirloin roast
yielded the highest percentage for sliceable meat and the
arm roast the lowest percentage. The mean texture, tender-
ness, and Juiciness scores of the USDA Choice cuts were
higher than those of the USDA Commercial cuts, and the
sirloin roast was scored higher in Juiciness than the top

round roa st .

Armina Kolmer

Analyses of variance of color, flavor, and
appearance scores and shear force readings revealed no
significant differences attributable to grade or cut.

The correlations between the obJective shear force readings
and the subjective tenderness scores were not significant.

From the results of the study, a factor was cal-
culated to show the relationship of the cost per pound of
cooked sliceable meat to the cost per pound of the raw
meat. These factors multiplied by the current market price
enable the food service operator to predict the cost per

pound of cooked sliceable‘ meat and the cost per portion.

USDA CHOICE, GOOD, AND COMMERCIAL GRADES OF
FOUR W—TO-MEDIUM PRICE BEEF ROASTS:
COOKING LOSSES, YIELD, PALATABILITY, AND COST

By
Armina Kolmer

A PROBLEM

Submitted to the Dean of the College of Home Economics
of lichigan State University of Agriculture and
Applied Science in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the degree of

MASTER OF SCIENCE

Department of Institution Administration

1960

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The writer wishes to express her sincere appreciation
to Dr. Pearl J. Aldrich for her supervision and encourage-
ment throughout this study.

Grateful acknowledgment is extended also to Miss
Katherine Hart for her interest and encouragement, and to
Dr. H. D. Baten and Dr. Grace Miller for their assistance
with the statistical analysis.

The writer'also wishes to express her sincere thanks
to the members of the taste panel, to Mr. Hiatt for his
assistance in obtaining the cuts of beef used in this study,

and to others for their suggestions and support.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

ACKNWLEN‘MEMS OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.000000000000000.
LIST OF PIATES 0.0000000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.
LIST OF TABLES 000.00.00.000.000.00.00000IOOOOOOOOOOO.
1118.1. OF FIGURES O...O...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0.00
INTRODUCTION 0.0.00.0...0.0.0.00000.000000000000000...
mm OF LMATURE O0.00.00.00.00.000.000.000.000.00
Factors Affecting the Cooking Losses of Meat .......
comp°81t1°n Of mat, grade OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Stage of COOkery 0.900.000.0000.000000000000000000
Cooking temperature ..............................
nethOd or c00k1m 000000.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Surface area OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000.000.000.00...
Degree or ripening oeeeeeeeooeeeeeeeeeooooeeeeoeee

Initial tempemture coco.eoeeeeeooeeeeoeeeeeeooeee
StYle or cutting eeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeehee

Freezing .........................................
Age and weight ...................................
Vitamin Losses of Heat During Cooking ..............
methods of Evaluating Palatability of Meat .........
Subjective tests .................................

ObJeCtive tests 0.0.0.0000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Subjective and objective tests ..................

Factors Affecting the Palatability of Heat .........
Am and flavor 0.0.000.0.0.0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Appearance and texture ...........................
'Juiciness and press fluid ........................
Tend-ewes and wear force readings eeoeeeoeeeoeee

mop OF mom 0.00...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000.00.00.00

Pmpamtion Of cutBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

ROGSting Procedum .00..00.00000000000000000000.0...

Preparation of Samples for Subjective and
ObJeCtive Tests eeaoeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeoeeeeoeeeocoo

111

vii

\o-c-qour 4:- : H L?

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Tests and Records 0.00....OOOOOOOOOOOOO...0.00.0...
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO00.0.00...
000k“ Losses 00......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.00..

Total cooking losses ............................
valatue 108838 OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOO0.0000000
TOtal dripping 103835-oeeeoeeeeeeeeoeeeeeeeoeeeee
Nonfat dripping losses ..........................
Fat dripping 108868 eeeeeeeeooeeoeeee000000000000

Yield OOOOOOOOOOOO0.0......0.0.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Sliceable mat 00.0.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...
Edible scrap OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO...00......
medible scrap 0.0.0....OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0

Palatabuity OOOOOOOOOOOCOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Am” 0.00.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

calor OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Flavor Of lean mat .0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

TeXture OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOO
Juicmess 0......00......OOOOOOOCOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOO

Tendemeas 0.0.000...O...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOCOOOOOO

Shear Force Reading 0.0.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO.

Correlation of tenderness scores and shear
force readings eeeeeeoeeeeeeooeeeeooeeeeeeeoeee

Cooking Time ......................................
Cost and.Yield Data to Aid in Purchasing ..........
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS .............................
LITERATURE CITED ....................................

APPENDH 0.0.0.0000...0.00....COOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOI

cocking 108898 00.00.00.000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.0
Total cooked meat, sliceable meat, edible

and medible scrap .0.000000000000000000000000.
Palatabuity Booms O...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Analyses of variance of cooking losses ..........
Analyses or variance Ofy1eld OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
Analyses of variance of taste panel scores and

wear force mad-me 0.00000000000000000000000.

iv

48
52’
53
23
58
59
60

77

SSSS‘SSegaga‘

TABLE or CONTENTS (Continued)

COORing tine OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00000000000000000 100
Instruction sheet for taste panel members ......... 101
800:? meet 00.00.0000.0000.000.0000000000000000000 104
Plates showing muscles used in this study ........105-108

Plate

Plate

Plate

Plate

Plate

Plate

1.

2.

3.

LIST OF PLATES

Location of chuck arm pot roast used
matUdy OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000000000000. 44

Location of sirloin roast and pot roasts
from heel and top round used in study ...... A5

LocatiOn of triceps brachii muscle used
in Study O...0.00000000000000000000000000.0.105

Location of semitendinosus muscle used

in Study .OOOCOOOOOOOOOOOQ0.0.0.0.0000000000106

Location of semimembranosus muscle used in

study OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.00.00.00.0000000000107

Location of rectus fe moris muscle used
in Study 0.0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.00.108

vi

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

Table

2.

3.

10.

11.

LIST OF TABLES

Cost per pours! of four cuts in each of
three grades of beef ....................

Mean percentages for cooking losses from
four cuts in each of three grades

or beef 00......OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO0.0.

mean percentages of cooked meat from
four cuts of beef in each of three
grades (based on raw weight) ............

Mean percentages of cooked meat from
four cuts of beef in each of three
grades (based on cooked.weight) .........

Mean taste panel scores and shear read-
ings for four cuts from each of
thme gmdes or beef 00000000000000.0000.

Average roasting time required with an
oven temperature of 149° C ..............

Mean "as purchased" weight of the four
cuts in each of three grades of beef
needed for one hundred 2 l/é-ounce
portions 0.0.0...OOOOOCOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Mean reciprocal factors for four cuts in
each of three grades of beef ............

Percentages of cooking losses from four
cuts in each of three grades of

beef 0.0.0.000...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Percentages for total cooked meat,
sliceable meat, edible and inedible
scrap from four cuts of beef in
“Oh Of thme grades OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

Mean taste panel scores and shear read-
ings for four cuts from each of
three grades of beef ....................

vii

51
55

63

71

79

79

81

95

96

Table 12.

Table 13.

Table 14.

Table 15.

LIST OF TABLES (Continued)

Analyses of variance of cooking losses
for four cuts from each of three
gmaes or beef 00.000.000.000.00.0.0.0... 97

Analyses of variance of yield for four
cuts from each of three grades of

beef 0.0...O...0.0...OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO 98

Analyses of variance of taste panel
scores and shear force readings for
four cuts from each of three grades
or beer OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO000.00... 99

Roasting time required with an oven
temperature of 149° C ................... 100

viii

Figure
F1911?
Figure
Figure
Figure
Figure

Figure

Figure
Figure

Figure

Figure

Figure

1.

9.

10.

11.

12.

LIST OF FIGURES

Mean per cent total cooking losses based on
an average of the three grades and four
replications for each grade .............

Mean per cent total cooking losses, vola-
tile losses, fat and nonfat dripping
losses for four cuts in each of three
gmdes or beef OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO..0

Mean per cent volatile cooking losses
based on an average of the three grades
and four replications for each grade ....

Mean per cent total dripping losses based
on an average of the three grades and
four replications for each grade ........

Mean per cent nonfat dripping losses based
on an average of the three grades and
four replications for each grade .........

Mean percentages for sliceable meat,edible
and inedible scrap for four cuts in each
of three grades of beef .................

Mean percentages for sliceable meat based
on raw weight and on an average of
three grades and four replications
for each gmde 0.....0...0.......’.0.0.00.

Mean percentages for edible scrap based
on an average of three grades and four
replications for each grade .............

Mean percentages for inedible scrap
based on an average of three grades
and four replications for each grade .. ..

Mean.taste panel scores for four cuts
in each of three grades of beef .........

Mean.texture scores based on an average
for the four cuts and four replica-I
1310118 for eaCh cut 000....00...0'0.000.000

Mean juiciness scores based on an
average for the four cuts and four
replications for each cut ...............

ix

56

57

58

59

61

62

65

67

68

7h

71:

LIST OF FIGURES (Continued)

Figure 13. Mean juiciness scores based on an aver-
age of the three grades and four
replications for each grade ............. 75

Figure 14. Mean tenderness scores based on an aver-
age of the four cuts and four repli-
cations for each cut .................... 76

INTRODUCTION

The primary objective of a food service operator is
to purchase, prepare, and serve the highest quality food
which is possible within the budget. Meat purchases repre-
sent the largest single expenditure in many food service
budgets; therefOre, it deserves special care in purchasing
and preparation. Because beef is widely accepted and can be
prepared in a variety of ways, more of it is consumed than
pork, veal, or lamb. Food specialists have long recognized
that beef can be prepared so it is tender, juicy, appetizing
in appearance, and full of that "meaty" flavor and aroma;
or it can be tough, dry, unattractive, and lacking in
'appetizing aroma and flavor.

The individual in charge of the purchasing for'a
food service operation may assume that there are no differ-
ences in cooking losses among various cuts and grades of
beef, and that the most palatable roast beef will come from
the highest grade and choicest cut available. Some investi-
gators have found that the cut and the grade of beef are
related to the cooking losses and the palatability of the
roast. vail and O'Neill (99) reported that top round was
less tender than clod or rib roast. Nelson, Lowe, and
Helser (70) found that roasts with high fat content had a
greater total cooking loss and higher dripping loss than

lean meats.’ However, Aldrich and Lowe (1) found no

significant differences in palatability or cooking losses
between individual muscles of USDA Choice and Good beef
rounds. Simone and co-workers (90) noted that there were
no clear differences in eating quality between.USDA Good
and Commerical rib roasts, but reported that there were
differences in tenderness, flavor, and juiciness, between
USDA Choice and Good rib roasts.

The cuts of sirloin, top round, heel of round, and
chuck arm roast from USDA Choice, Good and Commercial grades
were chosen for this study because of their availability in
the local market, and their suitability for roasts and pot
roasts in the low-to-medium price range. The methods of
roasting used in this investigation have been recommended
and are being practiced in many institutional food services.
The objectives of this study are to compare the designated
grades in four cuts of beef for: (1) cooking weight losses,
(2) yield of sliceable cooked meat and edible scrap, (3)
cost per cooked pound and edible portion, and (A) palata-
bility.

From the results of the study, it is hoped that a
table can be constructed to show the "as purchased" weight
of the four cuts of each grade of beef needed for one
hundred 2 l/2-ounce portions. A factor will be calculated
to show the direct relationship of the cost per pound of
cooked sliceable meat to the cost per pound of the raw
meat. Thus, regardless of fluctuating market prices for the

four cuts in the three grades, the current market price may

sf

3

be multiplied by this factor to give the food service oper-
ator the predicted cost per pound of the cooked sliceable
beef from which the cost per serving of designated size may
be determined. After considering the cost factor against
the palatability characteristics of various cuts and grades
of meat, the operator can then purchase the highest quality
which is possible within the budget.

REVIEW OF LITERATURE
Factors Affecting the Cooking Losses of Meat

At the turn of the twentieth century, Bevier (6),
Grindley (46), and their associates, early investigators of
meat cookery, concluded that composition, method of cooking
and internal temperature of the meat were the principal
factors which affected the nature and extent of cooking
losses. One of the first controlled investigations in the
quantity cookery of meat was completed in 1942 by the in-
stitution administration division of the University of Texas
under the sponsorship of the National Live Stock and Meat
Board. They studied the effect of temperature, time of
cooking, and the degree of doneness on the shrinkage of
large roasts (101).’

Lowe (63) stated that the stage of cookery, composi-
tion of meat, grade, surface area, degree of ripening,
cooking temperature, and method of cooking affect the cook-
ing losses of meat. Other factors related to the cooking
losses of meat are initial temperature (20), style of cut-
ting (13, 56), freezing (55, 74), and age of the animal

(90. 79).

Composition of meat, grade
Nelson, Lowe, and Helser (70) found that rib roasts
with a high fat content had a greater total cooking loss

than lean roasts. The average total cooking losses for the
lean roasts from calves, yearlings, and 2 year olds were
12.5, 11.4, and 10.6 per cent, respectively, and the average
total cooking losses for roasts with a high fat content
were 12.7, 13.5, and 15.4 per cent, respectively. The low
volatile losses of rib roasts cut from fattened animals
were attributed to the layer of fat which would tend to
prevent volatile losses.
' Only a slight variation in cooking losses between
meat from grass-fed steers and meat from supplement-fed
steers was reported by Wanderstock and Miller (100).
Aldrich and Lowe (1) discovered no significant difference
in cooking losses for muscles for USDA Choice and Good beef
rounds. Satorius and Child (86) found greater total cook-
ing losses in cows that in heifers and steers, but they
found no difference in total cooking losses attributable
to grade. In a study of cooking losses from USDA Choice,
Good, and Commerical beef roasts, Masuda (67) reported no
significant differences in total losses or volatile losses.
However, differences in dripping losses attributable to
grade were found at the highest internal temperature, 900 C.
Thille and co-workers (97) cooked standing rib roasts
at an oven temperature of 210° C to an internal temperature
of 65° c. Their results showed that the average total
cooking loss for lean roasts was 29 per cent and for fat
roasts 33 per cent, due to the rendering out of surface

fat. The volatile loss of fat roasts was less than in the

6

lean roasts. Alexander (2) also found that well-fattened,
_high-grade beef ribs shrank more by drippings and less by
evaporation than low-grade ribs. For beef ribs of differ-
ent grades there was proportionately greater variation in
drippings than in evaporation losses.

vail and O'Neill (99) cooked USDA Choice and Good
top round, clod, and rib roasts at 300° F to an internal
temperature of 680 C (155° F). The greatest difference in
shrinkage between the different cuts and grades of this
study was 2.05 per cent. This indicates that any differ-
ence in evaporation loss was somewhat compensated for by

. the difference in dripping loss.

Stage of cookery. .
According to a number of studies (1, 2, 20, 46, 59,

 

67, 88), the more thoroughly beef was cooked, the greater
was the shrinkage. The difference in cooking loss was
primarily a variation in volatile loss rather than dripping
loss. In a study of three 2-rib roasts seared for 30 min-
utes at 240° c and finished at 152° c, Alexander (2) found
the average evaporation loss at the rare stage of cooking
was 8.4 per cent and at the medium stage 13.7 per cent.
Marshall and coeworkers (66) also found that cooking
losses increased with the degree of doneness; however, they
noted that the losses appeared to stabilize at the medium-
well done stage. Dawson, Dochterman, and vettel (36) re-
ported that cooking pot roasts an additional 30 to 45 min-
utes increased the cooking loss from 30 per cent to 37-38

per cent.

Cooking temperature

Several investigators (20, 36, 59, 60, 96) have found
that low oven temperatures for roasting resulted in lower
cooking losses than high oven temperatures. Alexander (2)
reported that the shrinkage of rib roasts was greater'at an
oven temperature of 174° c than at 110° C and that the-drip-
ping losses increased proportionately more than the evapor-
ation losses. According to vail and O'Neill (99), evapora-
tion losses were 99 per cent greater and dripping losses
were 108 per cent greater at an oven temperature of 232° C
(150° F) than at 140° C (285° F) . Child and Satorius (15)
noted that total losses increased with each 250 increment
in exterior temperature from 125° C to 2000 C and that the
increase was due to evaporation losses only.

In a comparison of oven temperatures of 80° C and
125° C, Cover (25) discovered that the total cooking leases
' at the two different temperatures were about the same in
paired arm-bone chuck, standing rib, and bottom round
roasts. Griswold (48) roasted USDA Prime and Commercial
beef round at oven temperatures of 250° F and 300° F and
noted that the total cooking loss was greater at the lower

temperature.

Method of cooking

Clark and van Duyne (16) cooked paired USDA Prime
and Choice top round beef roasts to an internal temperature
of 82° c in uncovered pans at 300° F and in pressure sauce-

pans at 15 pounds pressure. Total cooking losses were 35.6

 

per cent in the pressure saucepan and 29.5 per cent in the
oven. The dripping loss was greater in the saucepan, and
the volatile loss was greater in the oven.

A comparison of cooking losses of meat cooked in
covered and uncovered pans was made by Cline and Nesbitt
(19). The total cooking loss and the dripping loss of the
covered roast were generally greater and the loss by evapor-
ation was less than roasts cooked in open pans. Similar
findings were reported by Hood and co-workers (56) and
Grindley and Mojonnier (46). However, according to Cover
and Smith (30), oven roasts had greater total loss than
pot roasts.

Several investigators studied the effect of metal
skewers on cooking time and shrinkage of roasts.) Morgan
and Nelson (69) discovered that the use of metallic skewers
shortened the cooking time about 30 per cent. The average
loss of weight in skewered roasts was 27.3 per cent and in
unskewered roasts 31.5 per cent. These investigators
noted that the meat cooked with skewers was more juicy,
more appetizing in appearance, and more tender. '

Cover (24) cooked paired round, arm-bone chuck, and
standing rib roasts to an internal temperature of 800 C at
an oven temperature of 125° C, one with skewers and the
other without. Her results indicated that the meat cooked
with skewers had a shorter cooking time and lower cooking
loss than the unskewered meat. However, according to this

study the skewers increased the toughness of the three cuts

of beef.

When chlorides of sodium, potassium, calcium, and
magnesium were added to meat prior to heating, the water
holding capacity of the meat proteins, when heated to 70°
C, was increased. When sodium chloride was added to meat
prior to freezing, less drip was encountered on thawing.
Citric acid added to meat prior to heating increased the
shrinkage of the meat (102).

Cline and co-workers (20) studied the effect of
searing on the cooking loss of prime rib roasted to an in-
ternal temperature of 57° C. Five different methods and
temperatures of searing gave an average cooking loss of 17
per cent. Constant oven temperatures of 110° 0, 163° C,
and 191° 0 yielded 6.79, 15.83, and 18.69 per cent total

cooking losses, respectively.

Surface area .

Lowe (63) stated that compact pieces of meat of a
given weight with small surface area have smaller losses
than irregular-shaped pieces of the same weight but with
greater surface area. Lowe and associates (64) experimented
with 7-9 rib roasts which had a larger total surface area
and a larger cut surface than the 10-12 ribs. In every .
instance the 7-9 ribs had a greater'weight loss during
cooking than the corresponding 10-12 rib roasts.

From their study of seven sets of 5, 10, and 15
pound USDA Choice top round roasts cooked to internal temper-

atures of 140° F to 176° F in a 300° F electric oven,

10

Marshall and cosworkers (66) concluded that total prepara-
tion losses are affected by the size of the roasts. Cooking
losses for the 10 and 15 pound roasts were significantly
lower (33 and 31 per cent) than for the 5 pound roasts (36
per cent).

Cline andco-workers (20) reported little relation-
ship between the size of roasts and the percentage of cook-
ing losses. They found that heel of round roasts, averaging
4.86 pounds, had a cooking loss of 12.47 per cent; rump
roasts, averaging 7.41 pounds, a cooking loss of 9.06 per
cent; and chuck rib roasts, averaging 12.00 pounds, a cook-

ing loss of 11.23 per cent.

Degree 0£_ri en

* According tO-Alexander and Clark (4), an increase in
the length of the ripening period of lamb and beef car-
casses decreased the cooking losses of the roasts. Paul,
Lowe, and Buford (78) studied the effect of l to 18 day
storage periods on the cooking losses of beef. They re-
ported that dripping losses increased sharply for the
longest storage period, but that this increase was offset
by a corresponding decrease in loss by evaporation; there-
fore, total cooking losses did not change significantly.
The total cooking loss of beef stored 1 day was 10.4 per

cent and after 18 days storage the loss was 8.4 per cent.,

 

11

Initial temperature

Cline and co-workers (20) have shown that the initial
temperatures of roasts when they were put into the oven
affected the total cooking losses and the cooking time.
Roasts with low internal temperatures when they were put
into the oven showed greater cooking losses than roasts with
higher initial internal temperatures.

Lowe and associates (64) compared the weight losses
of beef roasts which were cooked while still frozen and
those which were thawed before cooking began, In 31 or the
41 groups of roasts, the cooking weight losses were greater
for the roasts which were still frozen.when cooking was
started, but oppostie findings resulted with the other 10
groups. In a comparison of lamb leg roasts, the weight
losses during cooking were practically the same for the
frozen and the thawed roasts. The investigators stated
that the frozen interior of the lamb roasts may have slowed

the loss of water from the interior of the roast.

Style of cutting_

According to Hood and co-workers (56), weight losses
during cooking were influenced by the thickness of the cut
of meat. Thin cuts cooked by moist heat lost less weight
than those cooked by dry heat, and the reverse was true of
thick cuts. Lowe and associates (64) found that bone-in
leg of lamb roasts shrank 23.2 per cent in cooking and
boneless leg of lamb roasts 29.5 per cent. The authors

commented that in boning it was necessary to cut more

 

12

muscle surfaces, and that this might account for the greater
weight loss in the boneless roasts.

Child and Esteros (l3) cooked 12 standing rib roasts
and 12 rolled rib roasts at 300° F to an interior tempera-
ture of 58° C (137° F). The total cooking losses were
greater for the rolled roasts than for the standing roasts.
Alexander and Clark (4) reported similar results. This
difference seemed to be due chiefly to higher evaporation

losses in the rolled roasts.

Freezing

Paul and Bratzler (74) found that steaks which had
been frozen required longer to cook and had higher average
cooking losses (31.7 per cent) than those which had not
been frozen (26.11 per cent). In a comparison of beef
rounds frozen at 18° F, 0° F, and -uo° r, Hiner and Hankins
(55) noted that the meat frozen at 18° F had the greatest
weight loss during freezing and that frozen at ~uo° F the
least.

A study of the effect of freezing and thawing upon
the total cooking losses of medium grade rib roasts was
conducted by Paul and Child (77). Upon completion of thaw-
ing, the roasts were cooked at 175° C to an internal temper-
ature of 58° C. The roasts thawed at 175° C had significant-
ly greater total losses, including freezing, thawing, and
cooking, than the roasts thawed at 240-250 C. Roasts thawed
at 241250 C gained in weight during thawing, and those
thawed at 175° C, lost weight. The frozen beef had

significantly greater total losses than the unfrozen meat.

13

Age and weight
Nelson, Lowe, and Helser (70) cooked rib roasts from

fattened and lean calves, yearlings, and 2-year olds. They
found higher volatile losses for the roasts from the calves
which indicated that the water content of the muscle from
'the calf regulated in part the cooking shrinkage. The
average total cooking losses for the roasts from feeders
were 12.5, 11.4, and 10.6 per cent for calves, yearlings,
and 2-year olds, respectively. 'The average total cooking
losses for roasts from fattened animals were 12.7, 13.5,
and 15.4 per cent for calves, yearlings, and 2-year olds,
respectively.

Paul and McLean (79) found that the weight of the
animal was related to cooking loss. They compared the
total cooking losses of veal legs cut from light, medium,
and heavy calves and found that the cooking losses increased
slightly with the size of the animal, while the cooking

time in minutes per pound decreased.
Vitamin Losses of Meat During Cooking

Since meat is an important source of the B-vitamins,
the effect of various cooking methods on the loss of these
vitamins deserves special attention.

Cover and Smith (30) conducted experiments with
2 1/2 inch thick standing rib roasts, They discovered that
the average thiamine retention in the oven roast was 41 per

cent and in the pot roast 49 per cent. However, the meat

14

and broth in the pot roast retained 64 per cent. The aver-
age niacin retention in the oven roast was 72 per cent and
in the pot roast was 62 per cent. The meat and broth in
the pot roast retained 97 per cent. The authors stated
that on the basis of a 4 ounce serving of raw meat, the

two methods of cooking differed by 3 per cent or less of
the recommended daily allowances of thiamine and niacin.
Therefore, the method of cooking of thick cuts of roast was
not of great practical importance in respect to these vita-
mine.

In a study of the thiamine and riboflavin content
of beef as affected by roasting and pressure saucepan cook-
ing, Clark and van Duyne (16) noted that the roasts cooked
in the pressure saucepan retained less riboflavin and more
thiamine than the oven roasts. The difference in thiamine
content was not statistically significant, but the differ-
ence in riboflavin content was significant.

Cover and co-workers (28) compared the retention of
B-vitamins in rare and well-done roasts of beef. In rare
beef the retention of the vitamins was 75 per cent thiamine,
83 per cent riboflavin, 75 per cent nicotinic acid, and 91
per cent pantothenic acid. In well-done roast the reten-
tion of vitamins was 69 per cent thiamine, 77 per cent
riboflavin, 79 per cent nicotinic acid, and 75 per cent
pantothenic acid. No statistical differences were found
between the retention of riboflavin and nicotinic acid in

rare and well-done beef. However, the retention of thiamine

15

and of pantothenic acid was significantly lower in the well-
done than in the rare roast. -

A study of the effect of two methods of roasting
on the retention of B-vitamins was conducted by Cover and
co-workers (27). The roasting pans were filled with meat
to typify large scale cooking. In one method the meat was
'roasted at an oven temperature of 150° C to an internal
temperature of 80° C for beef and 84° C for pork. In the
other method the meat was roasted at 205° C to an internal
temperature of 98° C.

They found that the total retentions in both meat
and drippings were significantly higher for thiamine, pan-
tothenic acid, niacin, and riboflavin for beef and pork
roasted at low rather than high temperatures. Retentions
in the meat only were significantly higher at the low temper-
ature for thiamine, pantothenic acid, and riboflavin in
beef and for thiamine in pork. The authors noted that the
saving in the total vitamin value by roasting with low
rather than high temperatures was of practical value only
for thiamine and niacin in pork and possibly for niacin
in beef.

Methods of Evaluating Palatability of Meats

There are only a limited number of objective tests
for determining quality of food. Therefore, we must often

rely on subjective tests in the evaluation of food palata-

bility (37. 72).

l6

Subjective tests
The senses of taste, smell, sight, and feel must be

depended on for estimting the quality of food. Several dif-'
ficulties are encountered in the use of subjective tests. A
taste panel must be selected on the basis of their acuity and
consistency in recognizing differences between the samples
under consideration. A panel of 5 to 10 people is generally
considered satisfactory (9, 72). These people should be

' reasonably accessible and have an interest in the problem

which is being studied (37).
A person my be trained to distinguish one taste from

another with great accuracy and reliability and to describe
his taste impressions (37). Contrary to the prevailing view,
Dr. K. Schlosberg of Boston University(81) found that sel-
ection and training of panels did not affect the perfor-ncs
of the panel members. He stated that apparently the best or
only way to obtain more stable and sensitive measurements of
responses to foods was to increase panel size.
Motivation and fatigue of panel members are also

problems in taste testing. According to Dr. Carl Pfaffsmnn
(81), the performance of judges improved due to increased
interest when they had imadiate knowledge of the results

of their efforts. Laue, Ishler, and Bullman (62) found
that fatigue was apparent in-the tasting of nple syrup but

not in coffee tasting. The authors suggested that other
foods should be studied to determine whether the effects

of fatigue are prominent or negligible.
In subjective tests, the panel of judges express

their sensory reaction to flavor, tenderness, texture and

17

other factors in terms of scores, ranks, or the number of
samples that are alike or different. These data are sum-
marized and tested for reliability by statistical methods.
The probability that the differences found in the investi-
gation could have occurred by chance are expressed by
degrees of significance. The term "significant at the 5
per cent level of probability" indicates that differences
noted would be expected to occur by chance five times in a
hundred; highly significant, or "significant at the l per
cent level of probability," indicates that the difference
would be expected by chance once in<xmehundred times (9).

Paired and triangle difference tests, ,In the paired
difference test, two carefully paired samples are submitted
to the Judges. They are asked to make comparative Judgments
on one palatability factor, such as Juiciness (21).

In the tiangle difference test, three samples are
submitted to the Judges, who are asked to select the identi-
cal samples or the odd sample. Sometimes a quality question
is included, and the Judges must indicate if the samples
chosen as identical or odd have more or less of the dis-
tinguishing characteristic, such as bitterness. Whether
or not the tasters selected the odd sample correctly, it
is important to analyze their answers to the quality ques-
tion (10).

. Byer and Abrans (10) have carried on experimental
parallel taste tests to compare the odd sample selection by
the triangular test with Judgment of taste quality intensity

by the two-sample procedure. They found that the results

18

of the two-sample test reflected discrimination of higher
statistical significance than the triangular test. Quality
Judgments made within the triangular tests also achieved
higher signficance than the corresponding odd-sample selec-
tion. According to these investigators, there was little,‘
if any, tendency for tasters correctly selecting the odd
sample to be more correct than the others in their quality
Judgments.

Two variations of the triangular test are the duo-
trio test and the dual-standard test. The later is designed
to measure aroma differences, and the former is a flavor
discrimination test (80). '

Rankisg tssts, In this type of test, the Judges are
asked to rank samples in either decreasing or increasing
order of some characteristic such as saltiness. The ranks
may be converted to scores, and the statistical significance
of results may be tested by analysis of variance (9).

Crist and Seaton (32) have conducted experiments
on the reliability of organoleptic tests. They requested
the taster to repeat his ranking of samples after the order
of placement of the samples had been completely changed.
The tests were made on four different frozen-pack fruits.
Their results indicated that the nose was the least able
of all the sense organs to duplicate rankings, and the
sense of vision was most reliable for duplicating rankings.
The sense of taste was between the other two senses in

potential for duplicating rankings.

19

Overman and Li (72) stated that the use of ranks
rather than scores would have encouraged their Judges.to
make finer distinctions among samples and thus eliminated
many of the tie scores. The use of ranks would also have
had the added advantage of reducing the tendency of indi-
vidual Judges to prefer certain scoring ranges.

Scorssg tssts, Scoring tests are used more frequently
than the other subJective tests. The palatability factors
are listed in logical order on the score sheet. Score
sequences from 1 to 5, 7, or 10 are most common. Ten
intervals are probably sufficient in most experiments; a
larger number of intervals increases the variability of
scores and thus the experimental error. Descriptive terms
as well as numerical ratings may be listed for each factor
(9).

Baten (5) used a scoring form which consisted of a
horizontal line 6 inches long with "excellent" written at
_one end, and "poor" at the other. The Judge recorded his
rating of the sample by placing a vertical line across the
horizontal one at the point which indicated his opinion.
The distance from the end of the horizontal line to the
point of intersection with the vertical.line was the score
for that sample. The same samples were also scored numer-
ically by the Judges. Statistical analysis revealed that
the Judges graded more accurately by the line method;

however, they preferred the numerical form.

2O

Flavor srofile method. The flavor profile method is
not a measuring device; its usefulness lies in flavor im-
provement studies and in formulative and analytical studies
of flavor and aroma (81). The panel of Judges usually
consists of 6 to 10 experienced people. Cairncross and
SJostrom (11) defined the flavor profile method as a descrip-
tive analysis of flavor expressing in common language terms
the characteristic notes of both aroma and flavor, their
order of appearance and intensities, and the amplitudes

of total aroma and total flavor.

ObJective tests

_'l_‘ssts_ st tenderness. The Warner-Bratzler shear
apparatus is the most widely used device for measuring the
tenderness of meat. The instrument measures the pounds of
force necessary to shear through a cylinder of meat either
1 inch or 1/2 inch in diameter. Some investigators have
reported a high degree of correlation between taste panel
scores for tenderness and shear force readings of the
cooked meat (1, 31, 85). Other investigators (39, 57, 68)
have found little or no correlation between tenderness scores
and shear force readings.

Hurwicz and Tischer (57) commented that the discrep-
ancy in results may be an inherent variation of the shear.
force apparatus or the criterion of the maximum force
itself may be responsible for these variations. Deatherage
and Garnatz (39) proposed that shear strength and tenderness

were not the same property of meat; shear strength may .

21

measure a variable related to tenderness but it is not the
dominant one. Reports by other investigators of high
correlation between panel scores for tenderness and shear
readings may result from the ability of the shear apparatus
to measure large variations in tenderness of meat samples.

The strain-gage denture tenderometer for foods is
an apparatus fitted with human dentures, mechanically
arranged to simulate frequency and motions of chewing. The
instrument is now under further experimental study (82).

No attempt was made in the first study to relate these
instrumental measurements with subJective evaluations or
shear force readings of various food items.

The tenderness press is a modification of the Carver
Juice press. The instrument measures the pounds of force
required for the first protrusion of muscle sample to appear
in the hole of the disk. The data obtained with the tender-
ness press showed signficant correlation with the Warner-

' Bratzler shear apparatus and the panel scores for tender-
ness (95).

A grinder attachement on a Hamilton Beach food mixer
has also been used to measure tenderness of meat. Correla-
tion coefficients of -.59 and -.60 were obtained between
this apparatus and subJective tenderness measurements (8).
Another instrument for measuring tenderness is the motorized
Christel Texture meter. Miyada and Tappel (68) reported
that it is a more accurate instrument for measuring tender-

ness than the WarneréBratzler shear'apparatus.

22

gssthtss Juiciness. .A "pressometer" is designed to
press fluid from heated beef muscle. A specific size sample
of meat is cut with a round borer. The sample is wrapped
in filter cloth and subJected to a pressure of 250 pounds
for 10 minutes. The weight of the press fluid is found by
subtracting the initial weight of the filter cloth from
the weight of the cloth with the absorbed Juice (l2).'

A high positive correlation between scores for
Juiciness and amount of press fluid was found by various
investigators (l, 70); however, Satorius and Child (85)
found no correlation between Juiciness scores and press
fluid. A highly significant negative correlation between

cooking losses and press fluid was noted by Child and Fobarty
(1h).

ObJective and subJective tests
In actual practice, Lowe and Stewart (65) have found

it desirable to employ both subJective and obJective tests
in connection with research on the functional and organo-'
leptic properties of food products. They emphasized that
the proper interpretation of obJective tests must be in
terms of those characteristics which are correlated with
subJective evaluations of acceptability.

Halliday (50) and Dove (42) also recommended that
subJective tests should be used along with obJective tests.
Certain palatability factors, such as aroma and taste, are
inherently subJective; therefore, there can be no obJective

measurement of them accbrding to Smith (9%). However,

23

subJective tests should not be used as the sole criterion
of value because they do not provide a permanent record
of reproducible results (50).

The subJective-obJective approach for determining the
acceptability of foods is used by many investigators (l, 14,
29, 85). Examples of the combined approach are: tenderness
determinations by a taste panel and shear strength measure-
ments on the WarnerbBratzler shear machine; and Juiciness

scores by a sensory panel and pressometer readings.
Factors Affecting the Palatability of Meat

Consumers Judge meat by its appearance, Juiciness,
tenderness, flavor, and aroma. Some of the factors which
affect the palatability of meat are grade, cut, oven temper-
ature, method of cooking, length and temperature of cold
storage and freezing. The effect of these factors on flavor,
aroma, appearance, texture, tenderness and Juiciness are

measured by obJective and/or subJective methods.

Aroma and flavor

 

Flavor has been defined as that property of a food
or beverage which makes it excite the senses of taste and
smell. Flavor, therefore, must take in the sense of feel-
ing in the mouth and nose (33). Cooked beef flavor is
quite complicated chemically and consists more of aroma
than of taste (34). Most of the flavor of meat created by
boiling or other low-temperature heating is presumably due
to the "cracking" of amino acid units of the protein, par-
ticularly those of the fiber.

24

Method st_cooktsg. In a comparison of the effect of
moist and dry cooking methods on palatability scores of beef
roast, cover and Shrode (29) noted that the Judges preferred
the flavor oftxitqm round and rib pot roasts to that of the
oven roasts. Latzke (61) found that when a roast is tightly
covered, the steam created by the moisture in the meat
partially destroys the aroma. Similar findings were re-
ported by Griswold (48).

' Hood and co-workers (56) and Clark and Van Duyne (16)
noted that meat cooked by dry heat had a better aroma than
that cooked by moist heat. According to Cline and Foster
(17), searing the meat seemed to produce more flavorful
roasts. Aldrich and Lowe (1) reported sulphury flavors and
odors in beef rounds which were cooked an additional hour
after an internal temperature of 900 C had been reached.

93393, The flavor of USDA Choice round roasts cooked
by either’moist or dry heat was Judged superior to USDA
Utility round roasts (29). Other investigators also found”
that the flavor of beef from animals on higher levels of
nutrition was preferred over that of animals on lower
nutritive levels (58, 89, 100).

Definite advantages in flavor of Choice over Good
meat were found by one panel of Judges who consistently
scored the meat with the most marbling higher than meat
with less marbling. Below a certain fatness, fewer differ-
ences were found. Thus, lesser quality advantages were

found between Good over Commercial grades than between

25

Choice over Good (90). Another study by the same investi-
gators (91) revealed only minor quality differences in
flavor due to degree of finish of the steers, implantation
with stilbestrol, or the particular grain used for fatten-
ing.

From their study of rib roasts from fattened.and
lean beef, Nelson, Lowe, and Helser (70) noted that the
panel of Judges favored the aroma and flavor of the meat
from unfettened animals. Jacobson and Fenton (58) discov-
ered that the level of nutrition produced no consistent
effects on aroma. Shea and associates (87) mechanically
introduced melted fat into modified whole beef carcasses,
rounds, and loins. However, their studies failed to reveal
a marked improvement in flavor following the inJection.

Qtssltesserature. Griswold (48) and Cline and
associates (20) reported that beef round roasted at 250°
F was superior in flavor to beef roasted at 300° F. In
another study by Cline and associates (18) no difference in
flavor or'aroma was found between.heat cooked at oven temper-
atures of 257° F and 311° F.

93.". 9.9.9. stfls 9_f_ cuttisg. Very little difference
in flavor was found among USDA Choice and Good top round,
clod, and rib roasts (99). Child and Esteros (13) reported
no consistent differences in flavor between standing and
rolled beef rib roasts.

sgs_ssgwslsss, Simone, Carrol, and Chichester (89)
compared the eating quality of beef from 18 and 30 month

26

steers. Their panel evaluation of flavor revealed no sign-
ificant difference due to age. Jacobson and Fenton (58),
however, noted that scores for aroma and flavor tended to
decrease as the age of the animal increaSed past 12 months.
The flavor and aroma of good cow rib roast was scored much
lower than good steer rib roast (86).

Storage. Griswold and'Wharton (49) studied the
effect of 9 days' storage at 34° F to 37 days' storage and
found that the longer period resulted in meat with somewhat
stronger aroma and flavor.. Experiments with storage under
ultraviolet lights were also conducted by the same investi-
gators. Meat held at 60° F for 48 hours was less desirable
in appearance and odor than meat held under similar condi-
tions but with ultraviolet lights.

According to Paul, Lowe, and Buford (78), Judges'
scores for aroma and flavor increased significantly up to
9 days of storage at 35° F; however, at 18 days storage
there was a decrease in aroma and flavor scores. Paul,
Bean and Bratzler (76) found that storage beyond 7 days at
32334° F did not improve the palatability of Commercial
grade cow.

Choice and Good beef quarters and ribs were aged at
temperatures ranging from 36° F to 86° F. To control
microbial growth at the elevated temperatures, ultraviolet.
radiation was used. Sleeth, Kelley, and Brady (93) dis-
covered that the flavor and aroma of meat aged for 2-3 days

at higher temperatures was comparable to that aged 12-14

days at normal aging temperatures. ~

27

Appearance and texture

 

Research has_shown that the sense of vision is more '
accurate and consistent that the sense of smell or taste
(32). Therefore, subJective scoring of appearance and tex-
ture is more reliable than the scoring of aroma and flavor.
Many investigators relate texture and tenderness of muscle
and state that one of the main factors affecting tenderness
is the size of the muscle bundles or "grain" of the meat
(84).

sts_temperature. Paul and McLean (79) studied the
effect of internal temperatures ranging from 71° to 880 C
on the texture of USDA Good leg of veal roasts from calves
of 3 different weights. In general, the texture of the meat
improved with each increase in internal temperature for all
3 sizes of animals.

Extent st cooktsg. When Good and Choice beef rounds
were roasted at 150° c to internal temperatures of 90° and
95° c, Aldrich and Lowe (l) noted that the roasts cooked
to the higher temperature were less attractive in appear-
ance.

§_i_ss s_f_ animal sag sgs. Paul and McLean (79) also
found that veal roasts from larger animals had the best
texture. In a comparison of rib roasts cut from fattened
and-lean calves, yearlings, and two-year-olds, Nelson, Lowe,
and Helser (70) noted higher taste panel scores for the
texture of meat from calves than from yearlings and two-

year-olds.

28

93;, Satorius and Child (86) studied the effect of
cut, grade, and class upon the palatability of beef roasts.
They reported that the texture of the adductor muscle was
scored lower by the panel of Judges than the triceps brachii
and longissimus dorsi muscles.

QEEEE: In the same study, appearance scores for
the cooked longissimus dorsi and adductor muscles indicated
no difference between medium and good grade of heifer beef.
However, a significant difference was found between the two
grades in the external appearance of the raw muscles (86).
Roasts from pasture-only carcasses were found to be signif-
icantly poorer in palatability and in over-all appearance
than those from the concentrate-fed groups (100).

Masuda (67) noted significantly higher appearance
scores for samples from USDA Commercial and Good grades of
beef rib, round, sirloin butt, and strip loin roasts than
for samples from comparable cuts of USDA Choice grade. In
her study of USDA Good, Commercial, and Utility grades of
thelengissimus dorsi of beef, Day (38) reported little

difference in the panel scores for appearance and texture.

Juiciness 29.51 sr_-_e_s_s_ 921-9.

Along with tenderness and flavor, Juiciness is one
of the palatability qualities most desired in meat. Factors
which affect the Juiciness of meat are grade and cut, cook-
ing method including exterior temperature and extent of
cooking, ripening, age, and size of the animal. Several

investigators have noted a relationship between scores for

Juiciness and total cooking losses (20, 26).

 

29

Cooktsg method. Noble, Halliday, and Klass (71)
compared the Juiciness of rib and round roasts which were
seared for 20 minutes and then finished at 149° c until
internal temperatures of 61° C and 75° C were reached. When
subJected to a pressure of 3,800 pounds per square inch for
15 minutes, the ribs cooked to 61° 0 yielded more Juice than
those cooked to 75° C. Aldrich and Lowe (I) noted that
cooking losses increased and scores for Juiciness decreased
when various muscles from USDA Choice and Good beef rounds
were cooked an additional hour after an internal temperature
of 90° C had been reached.) One panel of Judges considered
meat cooked by dry or moist heat to internal temperature of
160° and 176° F to be overcooked and dry (56). In their
study of veal roasts, Paul and McLean (79) reported that
'the scores for Juiciness decreased as the internal tempera-
tures of the roasts increased from 71° to 88° C.

Cover, Bannister and Kehlenbrink (26) studied the
effect of broiling and of braising the longissimus dorsi
muscle of the loin steak and the biceps femoris muscle of
the bottom round to various internal temperatures. Within
each cut and method of cooking, the Juiciness scores were
higher for the steak which was less thoroughly cooked.

When only well-done steaks were considered, the Juiciness
scores of the broiled meat was considerably higher than
the braised. In general, the Juiciest steaks were those

which lost the least weight during cooking.

30

The use of metallic skewers, according to Morgan and
Nelson (69), shortened the cooking time of standing rib
roasts and resulted in a more Juicy piece of meat. In their
experiment to determine the effect of moist and dry heat
on palatability scores of beef roast, Cover and Shrode (29)
found no significant differences in Juiciness scores. Clark
and Van Duyne (l6) cooked USDA Prime and Choice rib roasts
to an internal temperature of 820 C in pressure saucepans
and in uncovered roasting pans. The Judges considered the
saucepan meat too dry. Latzke (61) consented that cooking
in steam tends to draw Juices from the meat rather than
keep them in.

Oven temperature. According to Cline and co-workers

 

(18), there were no signficant differences in Juiciness
scores for beef roasts cooked at oven temperatures of 257°
F and 311° F. When oven temperatures of 257° F and 329° F
were compared by the same investigator (20), the roasts
cooked at the lower oven temperature were rated higher in
Juiciness.

E3292: When differences in intramuscular fat
marbling occurred, many taste panels consistently and
significantly scored Juiciness higher in the meat which
showed the most marbling (29, 70, 89, 90, 100). Jacobson
and Fenton (58), however, reported that three different
levels of nutrition in beef animals studied had no consis-
tent effect on the Juiciness of cooked beef. Masuda (67)
noted no significant difference in Juiciness scores attribu-

table to grade.

31

USDA Choice and Good top round, clod, and rib roasts
were cooked at 3000 F to an internal temperature of 68° C
by veil and O'Neill (99). They noted that both grades of
round yielded more press fluid than either clod or rib and
that the USDA Choice rib roast had the least press fluid.
They reported that the amount of press fluid obtained was
almost inversely proportional to the apparent Juiciness of
the meat when eaten.

Est 229. stzls 9_f_ cuttisg. In their study, Noble,
Halliday, and Klass (71) found that the round roasts yielded
more press fluid than corresponding ribs when the two cuts
were cooked to the same internal temperature. Satorius and
Child (86) reported no significant differences in the press
fluid among the rib, chuck, and round roasts from USDA Good
and Choice cows, heifers, and steers. However, the adductor
muscle from the round was scored less palatable in quality
and quantity of Juice than the triceps brachii and longissi-
mus dorsi muscles.

In their comparison of standing rib and rolled rib
roasts cooked at 300° F to an interior temperature of 580 C,
Child and Esteros (13) noted that the standing rib roast
had a larger quantity of Juice than the corresponding
rolled rib roast.

5.52. _o_f_ animal 9.92 £3.23.- Jacobson and Fenton (58)
studied the cooked longissimus dorsi, psoas maJor, semi-
membranosus and adductor muscles from heifer carcasses of

animals aged 32, 38, 64, and 80 weeks. They noted that

32

the scores for Juiciness tended to decrease in animals above
48 weeks of age. Veal roasts from the smallest calves were
found to be more Juicy than the roasts from the larger
animals (79). Nelson, Lowe, and Helser (70) stated that
(cooked rib roasts from two-year-old animals were rated
higher in Juiciness than those from calves and yearlings.

£5225: Cooked beef which had been aged for 18 days
at 35° F was scored higher in Juiciness than beef which had
been aged for shorter periods. Evaporation lesses from
cooking decreased as time of storage increased; however,
dripping losses increased (78). Beef sides stored for 9
days at 34° F were most Juicy than sides stored for 37 days
at the same temperature (49). 'Sleeth, Kelley, and Brady (93)
discovered that Juiciness values for beef quarters and ribs
aged for 2-3 days at 76° and 86° F were comparable to those
aged 12-14 days at 36° F.

Tenderness _a_r_1_d_ sssss £9332 readi_r_lgs

Paul (73) has stated that the degree of tenderness
of any given piece of meat isbelieved to depend on two
primary factors: (1) the state of the contractible sub-
stance of the muscle and (2) the amount and distribution
of connective tissue. Among the factors which affect ten-
derness are: (1) age, sex, and breed of animal, amount of
exercise, and type of feed; (2) extent of aging; (3) grade;
(4) cut; (5) pre-cooking treatments; (6) enzymes; and (7)
the addition of salts.

,Jl
Q's/a." v?

33

sgs_sss_weight. According to Nelson, Lowe, and
Helser (70), the tenderness of beef rib roasts was not
greatly influenced by the animal's age. Jacobson and Fenton
(58) reported that as the age of heifers increased from
32-80 weeks, the shear values of the cooked roasts increased.
They noted, also, that after 48 weeks of age, tenderness
scores tended to decrease. Veal roasts from the smallest
of three different weights of calves were found by Paul
and McLean (79) to be the most tender.

§2§3 According to Cline and associates (18), the
roasts from cows were less tender than identical roasts
from heifers and steers. Satorius and Child (86) discovered
that the shear force of meat from steers was lower than E
thatfrom cows. 2

. 2222.22.2222: In a study of palatability of beef

as affected by method of feeding, Wanderstock and Miller t‘:
(100) and Bloch and associates (7) noted increased tender- ‘2'
ness in roasts from grain and supplement-fed animals than t
from pasture-only animals.

Extent 23.25i2fi! Ziegler (105) stated that beef
should be aged from 2 to 6 weeks, but emphasized that only
the better grades could be aged economically for the longer
periods. Carcasses must have a fat covering which protects
the muscle meat from bacterial action by sealing it from,
the air.

In a comparison of storage for 12-14 days at 35° F
and 2-3 days at 76° and 86° F, Sleeth, Kelley, and Brady (93)

34

found that the tenderness values of the beef roasts were
similar. From their study of the palatability of beef after
storage, Paul, Lowe, and Buford (78) have reported that tie
Judges' scores for tenderness increased as the length of
the storage period at 35° F extended from 1 to 18 days. A
significant decrease in pounds of force necessary to shear
samples also occurred during this time. In their study of
meat stored at 34° F for 9 and 37 days, Griswold and Wharton
(49), discovered no significant differences in Judges' scores
for tenderness or shear force readings. They did note that
meat held at 60° F with ultraviolet lights scored slightly
higher in tenderness than meat stored at 36° F without
ultraviolet lights for the same length of time. .

Deatherage and Harsham (40), in their study of the
relation of tenderness of beef to aging time, found that
meat from some animals responded differently than that from
other animals. On the average, the tenderness of the broiled
longissimus dorsi muscle increased until 17 days of storage.
At 24 days, there was no improvement or'a slight drop in
tenderness; however, at 31 days there was some improvement
beyond the tenderness level of 17 days. The investigators
concluded that unless beef is aged at33°~35° F longer than
4 weeks, it need be aged only for 2 1/2 weeks. They also
noted that two animals with high initial tenderness scores
showed small improvement after such storage.

Deatherage and Reiman (41) determined the tenderizing

effect of the Tenderay process on 82 animals. Tenderness

35

was scored by the taste panel on a scale from 0 to 10. The
USDA Commercial carcasses showed greater improvement than
the USDA Good. The median tenderness scores of the un-
processed USDA Commercial and Good beef were 4.33 and 4.58,:
respectively. The median tenderness scores of the "Tender-
ayed" sides were 7.25 and 6.58, respectively. In USDA
Choice carcasses, the median tenderness of the unprocessed
sides was 8.12 and for the "Tenderayed" sides it was 9.21.
This indicated a less noticeable tenderizing effect on beef
which was classified as tender without processing than on
carcasses which were less tender initially. For thewhole
group of samples, the taste panel scored the tenderness of
the "Tenderayed" beef 2.50 higher than the unprocessed beef.

The investigators claimed that this method of tender-
ization raised beef several grades in quality. However,
Ziegler (105) raised the question of whether increasing
the tenderness of the carcass without increasing any other
palatability qualities changed the grade.

93292: No significant differences due to grade were
found by Satorius and Child (86) for shear force readings
or Judges' scores for tenderness of cooked longissimus
dorsi and adductor muscles. Vail and O'Neill (99) noted
little difference in the shear readings for‘USDA Choice
and Good rib roast, but USDA Choice clod and top round had
considerably lower shear readings than USDA Good grade of

these cuts.

36

According to Cover and Shrode (29), USDA Choice round
roasts, cooked by dry or moist heat, were more tender than
USDA Utility roasts. Simone, Carrol, and Chichester (89)
reported that taste panel scores for tenderness were higher
for USDA Choice top round and rib roasts than for USDA Good
grades of the same cuts. This agrees with other research
of Simone, Carrol, and Clegg (90). Fewer quality advantages
were found between USDA Good and Commercial grades than
between USDA Choice and Good grades (89).

Est, When USDA Choice and Good tpp round, clod, and
rib roasts were compared, the top round was found to be the
least tender and the clod and rib roasts were found to be
similar in tenderness (99). Other investigators (18, 20)
reported that the heel of round, rump and chuck roasts
were less tender than the sirloin tip and prime rib roasts.
Satorius and Child (86) noted that it required more pounds
of force to shear the adductor muscle than the triceps
brachii and longissimus dorsi muscles. The adductor muscle
was also scored less tender than the other two muscles.

Noble, Halliday, and Klaas (71) took penetrometer
readings of rib and round roasts cooked to internal temper-
atures of 61°, 68°, and 75° C. With one exception, the
penetrometer readings showed the rib roasts to be 1 1/2
times more tender than the first round cuts. They dis-
covered that toughening took place during the heating from
61° to 75° C.

37

According to Ginger and Weir (44), taste panel scores
indicated that the semimembranosus, semitendinosus, and
biceps femoris muscles from USDA Good beef rounds varied
significantly in tenderness throughout their length. Shear
strength varied only in the semimembranosus muscle.
Ramsbottom, Strandine, and Koonz (84) found that the shear
strength of the biceps femoris muscle and the latissimus
dorsi muscle varied within the muscles themselves.

In their histological study of muscle samples from
52 animals, Hiner, Anderson, and Fellers (54) “reported that
elastic and collagenous fibers were more numerous and larger
in the muscles which were used extensively, such as the
semimembranosus, biceps femoris, and serratus ventralis,
than in the muscles which were not used. extensively, such
as the psoas maJor and gluteus medius.‘

Method 229. extent st cooktsg. With increases in
internal temperature of veal roasts from 71° to 88° C, Paul
and McLean (79) reported an improvement in the tenderness
of the meat for all three sizes of calves. Griswold (47)
stated that collagen losses were higher in meat roasted at 2
250° F than at 300° F or braised by the standard method.
Losses of collagen on cooking increased as the internal
temperature of the meat inCreased. Collagen losses in meat
braised without added water were lower than for any other
method. Treatment of the meet before cooking by pounding,
scoring, or the use of enzymes had little effect on the loss

of collagen.

38

Latzke (61) stated that when meat was Cooked in a
tightly covered pan, the retention of steam helped to make
the tough tissue tender. Cover and Shrode (29) found that
the bottom round was more tender when cooked as a pot roast
than as an oven roast, but they found no differences in
tenderness in rib, top round, and clod roasts cooked by
moist or dry heat. Other investigators (15, 16) reported
similar findings for beef rib and top round roasts.

Aldrich and Lowe (l).reported that cooking roasts an
additional hour after the internal temperature of the meat
had reached 90° C gave a slight tenderizing effect which was
evident from tenderness scores and shear force readings.
According to Child and Satorius (15), the searing of rib
roast had no effect on the shear force readings.

In their study of the use of metallic skewers in
cooking meat, Morgan and Nelson (69) discovered that the of;-
skewers shortened cooking time and gave a more tender roast. .

Cover (24) also noted the shortening of cooking time, but

sv-f‘” W

she found that skewers increased the toughness of the beef
roasts. Cover explained that the shorter cooking period
allowed less time for the collagen to be changed to gelatin.
An investigation of the widely held theory that Cook-
ing by moist heat was necessary to make tough meat tender
was made by Cover (23). She cooked paired roasts, one by
dry heat and the other submerged in water in a large glass
water bath. The external cooking temperature was 900 C, and

an internal temperature of 85° C for the water-cooked meat

39

and 80° C for the oven—cooked meat were used. The cooking
time of the roast cooked in water was three hours and the
oven roast required 23 hours. The taste panel preferred the
tenderness of the oven-cooked roast, and the force required
for the mechanical shear of the oven-cooked roast was only
1/2 to 2/3 of that required for the water-cooked meat.
Cover concluded that the presence of moisture around the
water-cooked meat appeared to be unsuccessful in making
the meat.tender and that "moist heat," in the sense of
added moisture, was not necessary for making tough meat
tender. .

Winegarden and associates (104) studied the physical

changes in beef connective tissue heated to temperatures r—

l .' '
h

of 60° to 95° C. Little softening of the connective tissue
occurred at 60° C. Greater changes occurred by heating .
16-64 minutes at 65° C. At higher temperatures, both d‘i
collagenous and elastic tissues were softened by heating :

in water. Heating also Coagulated the muscle proteins and

fl'apH 1" A

hardened the muscle fibers. The speed with which the
connective tissues softened suggested that less tender
braised cuts of meat should be cooked a long time in moist
heat to interior temperatures of 8d°95° C to soften the
coagulated fibers as well as the connective tissues.
According to Wierbicki and associates (103), the
addition of 1.3-2.0 per cent sodium chloride solution by
artery pumpting prior to heating decreased the water loss
from beef during heating and this hydration effect was

40

related to an increase in tenderness. This treatment caused
a loosening and expansion of the muscle bundles and dis-
arrangement or'almost complete breaking of the connective
tissue between the bundles.

9! 2 temperature. Cline and associates (20) reported
that low oven temperatures of 110°-163° C resulted in lower
cooking losses and greater tenderness of beef than tempera-
tures of 191°-260° C. Other investigations (17, 22, 25)
also revealed that meat cooked at lower oven temperatures 9
.to the well-done stage'were more tender. HoweVer, Cover (22)
noted that when rib and chuck roasts were cooked at 125° C
and 225° C to the medium-rare stage, there were no signifi-
cant differences in tenderness response. 'Child and Satorius
(15) found no significant difference in the force needed to
shear samples of semitendimsus muscle heated to 58° C at I
temperatures ranging from 1250 to 200° C; however, the shear
of the longissimus dorsi muscle increased significantly
when it was roasted at an oven temperature°of 200° C.

Est_inJection. The study by Shea and associates (87)
to determine the effect of mechanically introducing melted
fat into beef carcasses, rounds, and loins, failed to show
a marked improvement in tenderness of the meat following
the fat inJection.

Freezisg. From their investigation of the effect of
freezing beef muscle, Paul and Child (77) commented that
there were no statistical differences in tenderness between

the frozen and unfrozen beef. According to Hiner and'

41

Hankins (55), beef rounds frozen at 18°, 0°, and -114° F
were more tender than their unfrozen pairs. The greatest
tenderizing effect was at -1140 F and the least was at+18o
F. In an earlier investigation, the same investigators (52)
had concluded that -1o° F and -uo° F had significantly more
tendering effect on steaks than +20° F. They also found
that there was no real difference in effect between the two
lowest temperatures, and therefore, -10° F would be the
more economical and practical.

Enzzses. In their study of the digestion of round
steak by papain, Gottschall and Kiss (45) noted that papain
digests meat most rapidly at 55°-75° C. When the beef is
ground, the rate of digestion is much increased; papain does
not penetrate solid pieces of meat at room temperature. It
was pointed out that following the usual procedure of paint-
ing ungnxnd meat with papain and then cooking it, the papain
would not penetrate very far into the meat and the papain

on the surface would be inactivated by heat before much

i'“

digestion could take place. ‘
Hay, Harrison, and Vail (53) compared the effects
of papain on USDA Commercial top round, bottom round, sir-
loin tip steaks, and rump roast. Oneethird of the roasts
were untreated, one-third were treated with tenderizer and
allowed to stand at room temperature for one hour for each
inch of thickness, and one-third were treated with tender-
izer and allowed to remain in the refrigerator at 35° F for

18 hours. They found that there was an increase in tenderness

42

of all steaks and roasts treated at room temperature. This

increase in tenderness, as measured by Judges' scores and

shear values, was highly significant for all the steaks,

but the difference was not significant for the rump roast.

PROCEDURE
Preparation of Cuts

Four sides from each grade of beef, USDA Choice, Good,
and Comercial, were purchased at one week intervals from
the Emgee Packing Company in Anderson, Indiana. Each week
four oven-ready, boneless roasts, averaging approxintely
6 pounds, were cut from a single side of beef. A piece of
top round, 4 to n 1/2 inches thick, and a heel of round '
roast, 4 to 5 inches thick were cut from the round. The arm
roast, approximately 4 inches in thickness, was out from the
chuck; and the sirloin roast, 4 to 5 inches thick, was cut
from the loin end. The beef cuts used in this study are
illustrated in Plates 1 and 2. The meat was cut 36 hours
before it was roasted and was refrigerated for this period
at 35° F.

Roasting Procedure

The roasts were removed from the refrigerator one
hour before they were cooked. Each roast was weighed on
a 25-pound capacity Hanson scale and assigned a code letter
and umber. The roasts ranged in weight from 4 pounds to
7 pounds 10 ounces. Each roast was placed fat-side-up on
a rack in an aluminum roasting pan, 17" x 12" x 5". A
precision thermometer, calibrated from -20° to +110° C

was inserted so that the bulb of the thermometer was in

44

FOREQUARTER 0F BEEF

Chuck
Arm

 

 

 

 

Plate 1. Location of chuck arm pot roast used in study.

45

HINDQUARTER OF BEEF

Heel of Round

 

Top Round \\ \\\

 

 

Sirloin

 

 

 

Plate 2. Location of sirloin roast and pot roasts from
heel and top round used in study.

46

the center of the thickest part of the roast. Separate pans
containing the arm, the heel of round, and.the top round
roasts were covered tightly with aluminum foil. The pan
containing the sirloin roast was left uncovered.

The thermostatically controlled Garland gas ovens
were preheated to 300° F (149° c). The arm and heel roasts
were placed in separate ovens, and the sirloin and top
round roasts were cooked in the same oven. An oven temper-
ature of 300° F was maintained throughout the cooking period.
Internal temperature readings of the roasts were recorded
at 30-minute intervals until the internal temperature of
the sirloin roast approached 77° C (170° F), and the internal
temperature of the other three cuts approached 82° C (180°
F). The temperatures were then checked every ten minutes
until the internal temperatures reached 82° C (180° F) and
880 C (1900 F), respectively. It was necessary to open the
oven doors to check the temperature of the meat. The cook-
ing time,for each roast was recorded.

Approximately 30 minutes after each roast was removed
from the oven, the meat and the drippings were weighed. The
amount of fat and nonfat drippings were measured in a 1,000
milliliter graduated cylinder, which was calibrated for
every 10 milliliters. The volatile loss of each roast was
calculated as the difference between the raw weight of the
roast and the sum of the cooked.weight and the weight of the

drippings.

'll

 

47

Preparation of Samples for SubJective and ObJective Tests

Sassles for shear force readtsgs
The top and bottom layers of the roasts were trimmed

by cutting across the grain with a carving knife so that

a piece 2 1/2 inches in thickness remained. From this

2 l/2-inch section, a sample, 1 inch in diameter, was re-
moved with a metal core for the shear test. The samples
were taken from the center of the semimembranosus muscle
(top round), and triceps brachii muscle (arm chuck), the
semitendinosus muscle (heel of round), and the rectus femoris
muscle (sirloin). These muscles are illustrated in Plates
3, 4, 5, and 6 in the Appendix. The l-inCh metal core with
a sharpened edge was used with a gentle, rotating motion,
and the sample was removed parallel with the direction of
the muscle fibers. These core samples were wrapped individ-
ually in aluminum foil, and the code number was marked on
the outside of the package. The samples were frozen and!
held at a temperature of -100 F until the end of the experi-

ment when shear tests were run for all the samples.

Samples for palatability scorisg
After the 1-inch core had been removed for the

shear test, the samples for subJective scoring were cut
from this section. A Globe Slicer, Model No. 230, was used
to cut approximately 0.25-inch thick slices across the grain
of the meat. The Judges scored four coded samples of roast

beef of a specific grade at each tasting session. Each

48

Judge received the Slices of meat cut from the same relative
position in each roast. Heated dinner plates and banquet
covers were used to keep the meat warm between the time of

slicing and the time of Judging.

Tests and Records

SubJective tests

Eleven Judges were given a practice session in which
they scored the four cuts of beef used in this study.
Mimeographed instructions and oral instructions were given
to each Judge at this time.

The score sheet was based on a scale from 1 to 7 for
aroma, color, flavor of lean meat, texture, tenderness,
and Juiciness. A score of 1 represented unacceptable qual-
ity; a score of 7 indicated excellent quality. To Judge
tenderness, the panel members counted and recorded the
number of chews necessary to completely masticate a l-inch
square sample of each slice. After the first complete run
of the 12 samples of this study, a tenderness table was
compiled for each Judge'based on his recorded number of
chews and corresponding scores of these samples. The
Judges used these tables for determining the numerical
tenderness score of each sample of beef throughout the
investigation. A copy of the score sheet and the mimeo-
graphed instruction sheets are included in the Appendix.

49

ObJective test

Tenderness was measured obJectively on the Warner-
Bratzler shear machine. Five tests were made on a cylinder,
1 inch in diameter, from each roast. The pounds of force
required for the blade of the machine to cut through the
cylinder were recorded, and the five readings for each

roast were averaged.

Records ‘
The following data were recorded for each roast:
1. Initial weight
2. Cooking time
3. Cooked weight'
4. Total weight of drippings
a. Measure of nonfat drippings
b. Measure of fat drippings
5. Weight of sliceable meat
6. Weight of edible scrap
7. Weight of inedible scrap
8. Number of 2 l/2-ounce sliced servings.

A sample of the record sheet which was used is
included in the Appendix. Total cooking losses were deter-
mined by subtracting the weight of the cooked meat from the
initial weight of the raw meat. Volatile loss was calculated

as the difference between the raw weight and the sum of the

cooked weight and the dripping weight.

50

gsst_records

The wholesale prices for November, 1958, which were
obtained from Pfaelzer Brothers of Chicago, Illinois, were
used in determining the price per pound of cooked sliceable
meat and the cost per 2 l/2-ounce serving. In these cal-
culations, an allowance of $.64 per pound was made for the
edible cooked scrap. This price for edible cooked scrap
was based on the price of ground beef, at $.48 per pound,
plus an allowance of 25 per cent for shrinkage in cooking.

The prices per pound of raw meat in November, 1958
are given in Table l. A factor representing the ratio of
the cost of cooked sliceable meat per pound to the cost of
raw meat per pound was calculated for each roast in this
study. The final ratio for each cut for each of the three
grades was determined by averaging the ratios of the four

replications.

I

TABLE 1. Cost per pound of four cuts in each of three

grades of beef

 

 

 

Cut USDA Crsde' .
Choice Good Comercial
Arm roast 3.69 3.68 $.67
Heel of round .59 .55 .50
Top round .95 I .90 .82
Sirloin .88 .86 .83

 

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The weight of the total cooking losses, volatile
losses, total drippings, sliceable meat, edible scrap,
and inedible scrap for each roast were converted into
percentages based on the raw weight of the meat. The
measure of the nonfat and fat drippings were converted into
percentages based on the total volume of drippings. These
percentages for the four replications of each of the four
cuts of each grade used in this study may be found in the
Appendix.

Analyses of variance of cooking losses, yield, and
palatability scores were used to determine whether there
were significant differences among the arm, heal of round,
top round, and sirloin roasts from USDA Choice, Good, and
Commercial grades. When significant differences were found
by analyses of variance, the Studentized range table was
used to determine the specific relation of these differ-
ences. In several instances, significant differences be-
tween replications occurred; however, these differences
‘were not included in this report since variation in animals
is almost inherent in a study such as this.~ The scores of
all panel members for each palatability factor were averaged
to eliminate the Judges as a source of variance in the

analyses.

53

Cooking time for all cuts and grades of roast were
compared. A chart giving "as purchased" weight for one
hundred 2 l/2-ounce servings of cooked, sliced meat was
constructed on the basis of data on cooking losses and
sliceable yield. The cost-per-pound ratios of cooked
sliceable meat to raw meat were calculated for the roasts

in this study on the same basis.
Cooking Losses

gstst_cookisg losses

Analysis of variance of the total cooking losses
revealed highly significant differences among the cuts of
beef. The mean percentages of total cooking losses for
the sirloin and heel of round roasts were significantly
different, at the l per cent level, from the arm and top
round roasts. These average cooking losses are illustrated
in Figure l. A line connecting two or more points (below
the base line) indicates that there was no significant-
difference between them. The low cooking loss of the sir-
loin roast can be attributed largely to the cooking method
and final internal temperature. Latske (61) and Grindley
and MaJonnier (46) found that cooking losses were less in
uncovered than in covered pans. Several investigators (l,
2, 79) reported that total cooking losses increase with
rise in internal temperature. The total cooking loss of
the heel of round, which was the second lowest of the four

cuts, may be ascribed to its small surface area. Lowe (63)

54

stated that compact pieces with small surface area have

smaller cooking losses than pieces with greater surface

 

 

 

area.
30.95 34.09 36.71
Sirloin Arm Top Round
31.29
Heel of Round
0 30 ‘ 32 34 K 16’ 38

 

Figure 1. Mean per cent total cooking losses
based on an average of the three grades
and four replications for each grade.
This study and the study by Masuda (67) revealed no
differences in total cooking losses attributable to grade,
although Thille (97), Dunnigan (43), and Nelson (70) and
their associates have recorded greater total cooking losses
in fat roasts than in lean ones. The sirloin was the only
cut of beef in which the Choice grade exhibited greater
total cooking loss than the Commercial grade. Comparison
of these data may 'be found in Table 2. The low total
cooking losses of the Choice grades may have been caused by
a closer trim of this grade than of the other two grades.
Figure 2 illustrates the cooking losses from four cuts

of beef in each of three grades.

Volatile losses

Differences in volatile losses attributable to out
were highly significant at the 1 per cent level, but there
were no significant differences attributable to grade. The

55

a>mrm N. zooms vomoomeomom mow nooxwmm Hoemou and! moon nova Hm one: on Human maroon on coca

 

cwwoowsm bounce

 

 

 

114 dowmdfiwo HoemH

are named meets zosmmoas eoaoH HOamem ooowwmm
roamou
>53 crowns w.~m Hm.qw MH.om Ho.mm u~.w~
coco ~.Hm wr.mm wa.mo o.He um.mw
nongowopow u.Hm mn.nr Mm.mo m.ww wr.HH
mane ea moss Sees. . PB on.an 5.3 Fee no.5
noon . M.mm H<.m& Mo.r# HH.NH uH.0u
nonemwouww H.©m Hm.oo NH.or Ho.rr w~.om
aoo momma around .N.u~ -.wo Nb.ow HH.NQ um.co
. 0000 n.00 MO.Q# Nu.Qo Hw.mw uo.mm
non—sought. H .mm no.3 mmbo 0.2. mm .9.
mHHHOHS 030900 P.HM .cH m.ow M0.MQ ww.mo
coco ~.om .mm u.mo mq.0m uo.mr
ooaamnowmw H.b< .rw H.oo no.0“ wH.QH

 

a zoom no comma or Home woewuomueosm.

as zoom ow now won moaned owwoowom Hommom we comma 0: Bonuses om «camp newbowsmm.

Per Cent

40

 

 

 

 

   

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

P ~ Fat Drippings
: - Nonfat Drippings
35 e— Volatile Loss
” Sirloin Heel of Round
H "","'""""""")..‘ . : ' 1‘
.30___ p tW¥i _____ . ..J“,
F ,
25(__
L—
L
20-——§
h ._ 7
A“.
Ef A
F 131
15 j . 7———1~
+— 1 ‘L 1 E 9 0‘
”' :_ 1 _ .1
)— i -
L
_ 7 7 i A
5 F- r l
A i
_ i t 3
1 . » ..
— _g-.. ' ," { t .7:
O _'A;. k ‘2‘ p. F __ A; ".A; j
Choice Good Commer- Choice Good Commer-
cial cial
Figure 2. Mean per cent total cooking losses, volatile

losses, fat and nonfat dripping losses for
four cuts in each of three grades of beef.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

,,.______ j
__ m , —10
W __7
,______. fl
r- } J -—5
4
_.+
Choice Good Commer- Choice GoodA Commer-
cial cial

Figure 2. (Continued)

 

luea Jad

57

sirloin roast had the highest percentage of volatile loss.
Figure 3 illustrates the volatile losses of the four cuts

of beef. Hood (56) and Clark (16) and their co-workers found
that the percentage of voldile loss was greater in cuts
cooked by dry heat than by moist heat.

The average volatile loss for sirloin roast was
lower for USDA Choice than for Commercial grade; however,
this difference was not significant. Masuda (67) reported
no significant difference in volatile loss attributable to
grade. Alexander (2) found that well-fattened high-grade
beef ribs shrank less by evaporation than lean, low-grade
ribs. Nelson and associates (70) attributed similar results
to the layer of fat which would tend to-prevent volatile
losses. However, in this study, the USDA Choice arm and heel
of round roasts cooked by moist heat had higher volatile
losses than the Good and Commercial roasts. Table 2 gives
the average per cent of volatile losses from the various

grades of meat.

 

 

 

11.20 27.46
Top Round Sirloin
9.40 12.15
A Heel of Round
0 fl I0 r 15 20 25 30

 

Figure 3 . Mean per cent volatile cooking losses,
based on an average of the three grades
and four replications for each grade._

58

Total drisstsg losses
Analysis of variance revealed highly significant

differences, at the l per cent level, in total dripping
losses attributable to cut. The mean percentage of dripping
loss for the sirloin roasts was lower than losses from the
other three cuts. The average dripping losses of the heel
of round, arm, and top round roasts were not significantly
different from each other. These relationships are shown
in Figure 4. The low dripping loss of uncovered roasts has
been reported by other investigators (16, 19, 56).'
Differences in dripping losses attributable to grade
were not significant. Masuda (67) reported no differences
in dripping losses attributable to grade at internal temper-
atures of 50° C, 60° C, 70° C, and 80° C. However, she
found significant differences in dripping losses at the
internal temperature of 900 C. 8

3.50 19.14 24.69-

 

 

 

Sirloin Heel of Round Arm
25.51
‘ fop Round
0 5 10 15 ' 20 25 30

 

Figure a. Mean per cent total dripping losses,
based on an average of the three grades
and four replications for each grade.

In the sirloin roasts, which were cooked uncovered,

the mean dripping loss percentages increased with the higher

59

grade of beef. Alexander (2) and Nelson and co-workers (70)
found that roasts with a high fat content had a higher drip-
ping loss than lean roasts. Among the other three cuts,
which were cooked in covered pans, the mean percentages for
total dripping losses decreased with increase in grade and

_ fat content of the roasts. These data are given in Table 2.

Nonfat drisstsg losses
The dripping losses were divided into nonfat and

fat dripping losses. Differences in nonfat dripping losses
attributable to cut were highly Significant at the l per

cent level, but there were no significant differences
attributable to grade. The average nonfat dripping loss of
the sirloin roasts was lower than the nonfat losses of the
other three cuts. No significant differences in nonfat drip-
ping losses were found among the arm, heel of round, and top
round roasts. Figure 5 illustrates these data. The low
nonfat dripping loss of the sirloin roasts may be ascribed

to cooking in an uncovered pan where the loss by evapora-

tion is higher.

 

 

 

 

.88 16.61 21.83
Sirloin Reel of Round Arm
23.11
Top Round
0 5 10 15 20 25

 

Figure 5. Mean per cent nonfat dripping losses,
based on an average of the three grades
and four replications for each grade.

60

Fat dripping losses

Although differences in fat dripping losses attribu-
table to cut or grade were not significant, the USDA Choice
grades of arm, heel of round, and sirloin roasts showed
higher average fat dripping losses than the USDA Good and
Commercial grades of these cuts. Only slight differences
were found in the fat dripping losses among the three grades
of top round roast because of the very low amount of inter-
ior and exterior fat in this particular out. These data
are given in Table 2. Nelson and associates (70) reported
that roasts with a high fat content had greater dripping
losses than lean roasts, and also, that the greater portion

of the drippings was fat.
Yield

The cooked meat from each roast was divided into
sliceable meat, edible scrap, and inedible scrap. The
sliceable meat was that part which was cut into 2 l/2-ounce
portions. Edible scrap consisted of pieces too small and
”scrappy" to be served as sliced portions. It was suitable
for use as ground, cooked beef or barbecue. Inedible scrap
included excessive fat which could not be used in preparing
menu items. Figure 6 illustrates the percentages of
cooked meatssliceable meat, edible and inedible scrap ob-

tained from the roasts in this study.

 

Inedible Scrap
Edible Scrap

Sliceable Meat

 
   

70L...

SOL. ‘ : ‘ __,

.7:-
n
If
I

Per Cent

00
O
I
I

. ‘ .
a w; ‘ 1
a , .
l
. \ L
h- ‘ ‘ r ‘
\ r
—
" x L
. ~ \

0‘ L, . A ‘ “ J T) A .w .
Choice Good Commer- Choice Good Commer-
cial cial

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 6. Mean percentages for sliceable meat, edible and
inedible scrap for four cuts in each of three
grades of beef.

 

61

was noon

 

Sirloin

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Heel of Round

. . 4 V 111 .VVV111VV 1 1 V.‘ 111VV\11 11.1, 11 1 V V 1V 1 V 11|1 11.1I1 V VV 1 V 1 V .V V V.1V \.
.. .V.. .. . . ...V.V.. . .5... . . . \ \\V.. \\\_. ..Vw..\\\.
. . . . \\\ \.. . . \\\ . . . . L \ \\\. \..\\\\\ \.. \.\\\.\
. . . . . . . . . .. . . , . \ \._ ..
. . . . . . . . .,. . .. ..\ , . . .. .. .... .. ..\._..\....
, . . . . . . .. . x... . . .... .\ ., \ x .\ . .. \ . .. . . ... . . \ . , \ .. , .\ ..\ .“\.,\.. \\\ \ \ \\\\\ \\\
. . . . . . .3.... ... , . . , . \., . .. . . . . . . .. .. ... ..\_\\. .\.\... \ ..
. . . .\\\ _ . ..K . \ .\ . . . x \ ... . ...\ \....\. \
. . . . . . . .. \ s .. .\ , s . \ . . . . . . _. x \ \.\.\\.. x
. ... . . \ \.. .. \ \ \a. . . \\ . \\ ..\\ ...\ \\.\\\_\ ..u
. , . . . . ..
...... . . .. .\. . . ...\ .\..\\. \ \..\. ._
. . \ x x . \. .
. . . . . x . .. .\ . \ . .\.\... \ ..\\\\\\\....\... .\\\
. . . . . . . \ . . \\. . ..\ . .. ..\
. . . . \ . . . \ ..\ ._.\.\\\...
. . a x \ . \ \.\....\\\\ .x. ...x.
. . . s . . . . . \ . .. .\ \.\x... . .\\
. . . . . \ \ . a. \ . \\ x x \ _. .
. . . . . a . . .. . . . x .. . \ \\\\. \\ \ .
. ..... . x \ x \ . \ .. \ .. .. \....
h L Dr LL )IL. LlleLL L L LL A» \ LL } L > L .L L) )flhli.\ L b L L LKLLLK Etfi LIKKFC >LKK.}
VVVV VVVV 1V w1VV VV V V 1 1 .11. V 1 1 1 1 V V 111 1 VV ..1.1 11‘ .VV 1.
. . , .. ... . _ . . _ . . , . . ..V.. . 1..VV . \V .. .. ..
. . .
s . . , . . . . . .. .. ... .
a . . a \ _. ..\ . .... \. \\ \. .
. \ \ . .
s .. , . . . . ... . .. \ .... \ , ..\.\. .\_. . .
n ... .. . . . . . . . . . .. . ._ \. \.\\..\ .
\. . . . .. . . . .. \ \\ _.\
. . . .. ..., . . . x . . \ \\.\\...\\\.x.
s V ..\,\ _ . .. _ \ ._ . .\\\ \..\ . .... ..\
v. \ , . ,. .\ ..\\
. . . . . x . . \. .. .\ \\.
. . .. \ . . . . . . \.... ..\,.\ .\
. x . .\ . . \ \. ....
w . . \ . ..\_
s . \ x \. \ . \\.. \.\\
n . \ . . x. \ . \ . \ \ \ \\ , .\.
. . . .\ . . .. ... . .\
. i tLL Kb! ..- it) LLL LILIDILLL # L LlilLlhpL LLL LlulbL .\ LIPL AK L LXK h DKKL
. 1 1 1 1 1 1111 V1VJV 1 1|1 \VV‘VV . 1 1 1 1|1J‘IV 1 1 1 VI‘I‘1 \IV 1 1 ‘1
x \ \ . \. . .. y
. . . .. ... . ..
. . \ .1 . \ \.._ \ ..x . \. .. \
. \ . . . .
. .. . . . .\ . x . . \ .. .1
. . . . . . \ .. . . g
. \ . ...
. . . . N x x 1 x .\ \._
. . . . . . x .
. . . . . .\\. . ...\ . .
s s s\ x\‘ \ K
. \
. also \ \ \ .\t \h \ a \ \L
. ..... . .. . . x... .. l
. . .
. . . . \\ . . . . . A
x . \ \ t \
. ..u. \ \. .
w a on. e .x ..x . . _ . . . i . . ...
i L .L LL LL \rbNKA LLILLILLIL LrA L L .i . )L i L l L L kt . L i
4 I. 1 V V 1 V 1 N V .1 VVVV1 V11 \. V\11|1 V1 VVVV V 1\ V. V . V \n .
. .. 1 \ \ \ \ \ \
w \ \ \ .. \ \
. x . H . \
. . . . \ \\.\.
. .. . .\ ... \\ .
. . . . . \. x
. . \ .
... ... . \ . \ . x
O I I u \ u e a \\ \ \
e .. \ \s \
l x \ . N
I . ... ...
.\ .\ .. . ..
.- In. \ \§\\ a \ .V
L.) L I} 4 P l! t b k. K by 4 )L K L A AA} L)
V VV V|1 V V N V 11 1 V V 1 V1 1
. ..
s - ... L
. ., . . A
.. . . . ..
a a! c x . L
. . .. \. . s a . i
... .... . ..
. . .. L
. . . \ n
. . f .
\ \
t h k b L L) L) bill) ( L L b .k) LL L LL L b b d) LL L btk
.1 a) . . £17.. . 1 V VVfi V 1 11|V 1|VV .V 1 VV VJV .
I . .l nasal \ .
. . . . . .
. . . . .
a. o l
. . . .
. . . .
. . . . . .
. . . .e . ..
.. .. \ \ _\
. . . . .
s.... .... . \. s . . .
. . . . . . . .
. . .
. s . . . . \
b b (P s t} L l. L i L K t > d b L ) l Ll»

 

 

 

 

Commer-
cial

Choice Good

Commer-
cial
(Continued)

Choice Good

Figure 6.

62

Sliceable sisst

The sirloin roast yielded the highest mean percentage
for sliceable meat and the arm roast the lowest mean per-
centage. The difference in yield between the sirloin and
arm roasts was significant at the l per cent level. No
other significant differences in percentage of sliceable
meat attributable to out were found. These relationships
are shown in Figure 7. The low sliceable portion of the
arm and heel of round roasts can be ascribed to the larger
amount of fat which surrounds the various muscles of these
cuts. Although the sirloin roast yielded the highest per-
centage of cooked sliceable meat on the basis of raw weight,
the top round yielded the highest percentage of sliceable
meat per pound of cooked weight. The high sliceable portion
of the top round roast can be attributed to the very small
amount of fat surrounding the muscles of this out. These

data are presented in Tables 3 and 4.

 

 

50.62 54.89 56.58 58.22
Arm Heel of Rd. Top Sirloin
h
0 50 ' 55 . 60

Figure 7. Mean percentages for sliceable meat,
based on raw weight and on an average
of the three grades and four replications
for each grade.

TABLE 3.

Mean* percentages of cooked meat from four cuts of beef in

each of three grades (Based on raw weight)

..L

63

 

Cut Grade Sliceable Edible Inedible Total
Meat Scrap Scrap Cooked
Meat
Arm Choice 53.43 7.55 6.49 67.47
Good 48.78 10.65 4.95 64.37
Comerc1al L9 .65 701+O 8. 8h 65 089
Heel or 0110108 She 80 7e 56 7e 51 69 e 87
Comercial 53 0816 9071 [$039 67093
Top Round Choice 55.61 5.69 2.80 6h.lO
Commercial 55.92 4.88 1.26 62.06
Sirloin Choice 58.02 6.63 4.05 68.70
Good 60.34 5.31 3.81 69.46
Commercial 56.30 8.60 A.09 68.99

 

*Mean of four replications..

TABLE 4. Mean* percentages of cooked meat from four cuts of beef in

each of three grades (Based on cooked weight)

 

 

Cut Grade Sliceable Edible Inedible
Meat Scrap Scrap
Arm Choice 79.17 11.25 9.58
Good 75.54 16.77 7.69
Commercial 75.31 11.27 13.42
Heel of Choice 78.28 10.93 10.79
Commercial 79.17 14.40 . 6.43
Top Choice 86.84 8.82 4.34
Round Good 91.13 7.01 1.86
Commercial 90.15 7.81 2.04
Sirloin Choice 84.35 9.72 5.93
Good 86.85 7.67 5.48
Commercial 81 . 59 12 . 49 5 . 92

 

*Mean of four replications.

55

The USDA Good heel of round, top round, and sirloin
roasts yielded a high per cent of sliceable meat than USDA
Choice or Commercial grades of the same cuts. However,
these differences attributable to grade were not significant.
The USDA Choice grade of arm yielded a higher per cent
sliceable meat than the USDA Good or Commercial grade of

this cut. These figures are compared in Table 3.

Edible scrap

 

Differences in yield of edible scrap attributable to
out were significant at the l per cent level of probability.
The top round roast yielded a lower’mean per cent of edible
scrap than the heel of round and the arm roasts. There
were no significant differences in mean percentage of
edible scrap between the top round and the sirloin roasts,
or among the sirloin, heel of round, and arm roasts. Illus-
tration of these data is given in Figure 8. The high per
cent of edible scrap of the arm and heel of round roasts can
be attributed to smaller muscle size and larger amounts of

fat which surround these muscles.

 

 

 

 

 

4.97 6.85 8.50 8.53
Top Sirloin Heel Arm
4 5 6 7 8 9 10

 

 

Figure 8. Mean percentages-for edible scrap, based
on an average of three grades and four
replications for each grade.

66

The mean percentages for edible scrap from the USDA
Choice, Good, and Commercial grades of meat did not differ
statistically. There was no consistentpattern of higher
per cent edible scrap for any particular grade. Table 3
gives the average percentage yield of edible scrap for the

three grades of each beef cut.

Inedible scrap

 

 

There were highly significant differences in inedible
scrap attributable to cut, but there were no significant
differences attributable to grade. The rank in order of
percentage of inedible scrap was the same as the-rank in
order of percentage of edible scrap for the four cuts. The
top round roast yielded the lowest percentage of inedible
scrap and the arm gave the highest percentage of inedible
scrap. The mean percentage of inedible scrap of the top
round roast was significantly different, at the l per cent
level of probability, from the other three cuts. The mean
percentage of inedible scrap of the sirloin roast was
significantly different from the top round and the arm
roast at the l per cent level. Figure 9 illustrates these
data. The larger amounts of fat which surround the muscles
account for the higher percentages of inedible scrap in the

arm and heel of round roasts.

6?

 

 

 

 

 

1.74 3.98 5.53 6.76
Top Sirloin Heel Arm
0 2 4 6 8

 

 

Figure 9. Mean percentages for inedible scrap based
on an average of three grades and four
replications for each grade.

Although the USDA Choice grades of heel of round,
top round, and sirloin roasts yielded a higher percentage
of inedible scrap than the USDA Good or Commercial grades,
these differences were not statistically significant. The

mean percentage of inedible scrap for each grade is found

in Table 3.
Palatability

Average taste panel scores for aroma, flavor, and
color showed no statistical differences among USDA Choice,
Good, and Commercial grades of arm, heel of round, top
round, and sirloin roasts. Figure 10 illustrates the mean
taste panel soores for these cuts. Differences for tender-
ness and texture attributable to grade were significant
at the 5 per cent level, and differences for Juiciness,
attributable to grade were significant at the 5 per cent
level, and differences for Juiciness, attributable to
both grade and out, were significant at the l per cent

level. There were no statistical differences in the shear

 

68

 

 

 

   
   
  

   

 

 
  

 

 
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6 o 6.0
I Choice brade
l
g! C‘ " a”? 5.5
5.5 I__ sirloin hoast _4 __ _3 t- .1
I —" \ Sirloin Roast
I / A c
I g m RoaSt
5,0 I__ // I ,u”3\ __ __ _g __ ///,_Arm Roast _g 5.0
‘i / ..’ ..e ~~ - 1 Of (1 .
1. /fl /. \. .\ /;’/ \ -_,/__/_?~\ / \ ________ ~~ Hee Roun Roast
! '~ 0 ~‘~\ \
I‘ / 4"” __\ __- \-.,)< V- \ ¥ 1. ~‘s b, §
z; _/x ‘ r $ -. __ __//(“F r .1 — / ‘— '5 ‘5’
m lama doast - .
2: \ \‘\ / ....“ \ ’ 3,3
C? .‘. . .\... ... ‘ 7 . ...\ \ g”
5‘3 \ m
H heel of Round Roast /'. , -. \., m
23. [1’0 - Top. Hound Roast \——- — H881 Of Round RQaSt \ — *— \\ fl “'0 g
(u . .\.
Ct» . 0.\... / H
G.) ‘3 \e ‘ \\\.'. m
’53 1 .. Top Round Roast \.. / 8 ,_-
E2 ‘ Top Round Roast. \. \ \ ('3 I
h 7591‘- L— .__ L— \—4 p— \ \. / __ 3.5 m I
m I 3
a \ V
\
4&0 . __ __ __1 _ \ / \_ 3.0
{_ Sirloin Roast \\
2.5 __ r_ __ __ _g 2.5
< 4:
o I I Di i I I I I I i T I I I I I o
, I
E 5 E 2 4m ,m . . . . s a a a a: 43
C - M 3:, 4:) Q) (I) H 0‘: g 0 0 g L4 0) I (D O H > :3 'U a) O a)
i‘ Q is K ”(:3 <1) 0 a) a '3 g p g :3 ‘8‘ g L 0 cu +3 g C. 33% G
q 0 *7 éi 6:: :gc < 0 r4 x Cc: rIc d L) E: g g. 07
.4 ..., e a a a, 6*

Palatability Factors

atabi it Factors
Figure 10. Mean taste panel scores for four cuts in each Pal l y
of three grades of beef.

Palatability Factors

 

70

force readings attributable to grade or cut. Possible cor-
relations between the panel scores for tenderness and the
shear readings from the four cuts of beef were investigated
statistically. Panel members checked descriptive terms

for aroma, flavor, color, and texture which are considered
in the discussion of each of these factors. 'Variations in
palatability scores and shear readings for each of the four
replications are given in the Appendix, and the mean scores
and shear readings are reported in Table 5. A summary of
the analyses of variance for each palatability factor may

be found in Table 14 in the Appendix.

Aroma

 

Although all of the descriptive terms listed for
aroma on the score sheet were checked by the panel members,
full rich was the most frequently observed characteristic
and faint was the second most frequently observed. The
odors of several USDA Commercial roasts of arm, sirloin,
and top round cuts were described as strong and foreign.

A full, rich aroma was detected most frequently in the arm
roast andleast frequently in the heel of round roast.

As the grade of beef became lower, the "meaty" aroma
seemed to decrease.

Aldrich and Lowe (l) found no significant differ-
ences in palatability between Choice and Good grades of
beef round. However, Nelson, Lowe and Helsen (70) and
Masuda (67) reported that scores for aroma were higher from.

roasts cut from unfattened animals (USDA Commercial) than

from fattened animals (USDA Choice).

a>whm m. gem: ammno renew moonoma man aroma wemdwammaa Hon moan nave macs coo: on armed wooden ow coon

 

 

 

 

 

wmpmmmawwwak wmowmnm mzomn
new Cameo >noam mHm<on noHOd eoxvcwe 9:909: acumen! wanna
on some some momapamm
Hem:
>3. 050900 Peuo PeOH seed. “.0“ PeON #ebb HeNer
noon b.m¢ r.or b.qm b.00 r.~o b.au Hm.md
OOSQMuOHmP #eQm bewm res he?“ Fem“ Pen-b. HOeNQ
meow on oeoeoo r.mo r.rm e.mo a.or e.wm r.aa no.wa
”CE 0009 For.“ Pemw Pew“ Peg PeON Peflm HmeQN
ooaaonowmw >.am b.rH r.oo v.0u u.oq r.mb -.q<
.HOU ”Or—5Q 030%00 5.63 Pod reg Peg Wecw meow Hmeoo
0009 seed” Peg keg ~9er more keg Mmeow
ooaaonowmw e.uo w.wm r.wm m.m~ u.0w u.mm NH.oH
mwawows I osowoo r.rm m.mu m.mm m.w@ m.Ha m.rm Ho.ro
coon b.bm r.¢w r.mr r.or r.oH r.wo mo.qo
ooaaonowww r.Ho u.oo r.mw u.qr u.mo m.oo mq.wo

 

* Iowa no women on monaw.mmsowom H: are emu» noon man ooaaofiowmw manned man wowawlmocn mmaowom

#5 are emu» nsowne mwmao.

** gown pm women on «(anew newnwsmm.

72

Color

 

The mean color scores of the sirloin and arm roasts,
based on an average of the three grades, were higher than
similar scores of the heel of round and top round roasts,
and the mean color score of the USDA Choice grade for the
four cuts was higher than scores of the USDA Good and
Commercial grades for the same cuts. The beef roasts were
generally medium to dark brown in color. The tOp round
roast was scored low in color and frequently described as
muddy, grey, or spotty; the heel of round was characterized
as veal-like, light brown, and irridescent. many people
object to the irridescence and consider it a sign of poor
quality meat; however, it is merely the refraction of light

from fat on the cut surface of meat.

Flavor of. lean meat

Although no significant differences in flavor attri-
butable to cut or grade were revealed by the analysis of
variance shown in Table 14 in the Appendix, certain trends
were seen. Rich flavors were observed most frequently in
USDA Choice grades, and bland flavors in USDA Commercial
grades. The arm and sirloin roasts were characterized by
a rich flavor and the heel of round and top round roasts
by a bland flavor. Strong and old flavors were occasionally
noted in all cuts and grades; however, they were particularly
evident in the USDA Good and Commercial grades of top

round roa st .

73

Simone and associates (89) reported higher flavor
scores for USDA Choice beef roasts than for USDA Good grade;
however, Nelson, Lowe, and Helser (70) found that flavor
scores were higher for unfattened cattle. Vail and O'Neill
(99) did not find a great deal of difference in flavor .
among USDA Choice and Good top round, clod, and rib roasts,
but_noted that the USDA Good round was the least desirable
in flavor. Hood and co-workers (56) reported that flavor
was significantly higher for beef cooked by dry heat than
by moist heat.

Texture

An analysis of variance revealed significant differ-
ences in texture attributable to grade only, at the 5 per
cent level. Figure 11 illustrates that the mean texture
score of the USDA Choice cuts was significantly higher than
that of the USDA Commercial cuts but was not significantly
higher than the mean texture score of the USDA Good grade.
The Commercial grades of roast beef were frequently charac-
terized as stringy and gristly. Nelson and associates (70)
reported that the texture of roast beef was rated higher in
roasts from fattened animals than from unfattened animals.
Although not statistically different, the texture of the
heel of round and arm roasts seemed to be more firm than
the other two cuts. The top round roast was occasionally

described as powdery and the arm roast as gelatinous.

74

 

 

 

4.2 5.1
Commer. Choice‘
4.7
Good
0 3 4 5 6

 

 

Figure 11. Mean texture scores, based on an aver-
age for the four cuts and four replica-
tions for each cut.

Juiciness

 

Differences in scores for Juiciness attributable to
grade and out were significant at the 1 per cent level.
Figure 12 illustrates that the average Juiciness score of
the USDA Choice grade was significantly higher than that
of the USDA Commercial grade. Nelson (70), Simone (89), and
Cover (29) and their co-workers stated that Juiciness was

rated higher in fattened animals than in unfattened ones.

 

 

 

3.9 4.6
Commer. Choice
4.1
1 Good
0 3 4' 5 6

 

Figure 12. Mean Juiciness scores, based on an~
average for the four cuts and four
replications for each cut.

75

The sirloin roast was scored significantly higher for
Juiciness than the top round roast, as is shown in Figure 13.
The mean Juiciness scores for the sirloin and top round
roasts were inversely proportional to the total cooking
losses. Satorius and Child (86) found that the adductor
muscle of the top round was scored lower in Juiciness than
the triceps brachii and the longissimus dorsi muscles from
the chuck and rib roasts, respectively, and that the adduc-

tor muscle also had higher cooking losses than the other

 

 

 

 

 

muscles.
3.5 4.4
Top Round Arm
4.2 4.6
Reel of Rd. Sirloin
0 2 3 4 5 6

 

Figure 13. Mean Juiciness scores based on an
average of the three grades and four
replications for each grade.

Tenderness

 

The only significant difference in average tenderness
scores was found between the USDA Choice and Commercial
grades. These relationships are shown in Figure 14. At
the 5 per cent level, this difference was barely above the
borderline of significance. Several investigators (29, 67,
70, 89) have reported that taste panels scored USDA Choice

beef higher in tenderness than lower grades of beef.

76

 

 

 

 

3.7 5.0
Commer. Choice
4.8
Good
0 3 4 5 6

 

 

Figure 14. Mean tenderness scores, based on an
average of the four cuts and four
replications for each out.

Although no statistical differences existed among
mean tenderness scores for the various cuts of beef, the
highest scores, based on an average of the three grades,
were for heel of round and arm roasts, and the lowest, for
top round roast. Vail and O'Neill (99) and Satorius and
Child (86) found that round was less tender than rib and
clod roasts. Cline and associates (18) reported that heel
of round and rump roasts were less tender than rib, sirloin
tip, and chuck roasts. 0f the four cuts and three grades
of roasts in this study, the USDA Choice sirloin and top
round had the highest average scores for tenderness and
the USDA Commercial sirloin and top round the lowest aver-

age scores.

77

Shear Force Readings

An analysis of variance revealed no signficant dif-
ferences in shear force readings attributable to grade or
cut. As shown in Table 5, the mean shear reading of the
arm roast, based on the three grades, was lower than the
other cuts, and the USDA Choice grade had lower mean read-
ings, based on the four cuts, than the other two grades of
beef. The greatest variation in shear readings was found
between USDA Choice grade of sirloin and the USDA Commercial
grade of this cut. The USDA Commercial arm roast had a lower
average shear reading than the USDA Choice arm roast.

Masuda (67) found that the shear force readings of
USDA Choice grades of beef were significantly lower than‘
the USDA Good and Commercial, and the readings of the rib
roast were significantly lower than the top round and sir-
loin butt roasts. Ramsbottom and Strandine (83) reported
shear force readings for 1/2-inch core samples of various
beef muscles: semimembranosus 11.9; rectus femoris 9.4;

triceps brachii 8.5; and semitendinosus 11.1.

Correlation of Tenderness Scores and Shear Force Readings

 

The correlations between the objective shear force
readings and the subjective tenderness scores for each
grade of beef roast were:

Choice -.204l

Good -.2459
Commercial -.2595

78

These correlations are not significant. This indicates
poor agreement between the subjective tenderness scores
and the objective shear force readings for tenderness.
Aldrich and Lowe (l) and Ramsbottom and Strandine (83) re-
ported high negative correlations between tenderness scores
and shear readings. Others (39, 76) have found little or

no correlation between.tenderness and shear readings.
Cooking Time

The time required to cook the four cuts in each of
three grades to a predetermined internal temperature varied
among and within the different cuts and grades. The time
required to reach an internal temperature of 88° C for the
arm, heel of round, and top round roasts and an internal
temperature of 82° C for the sirloin roast is reported in
the Appendix, and the average cooking time for the four
replications is given in Table 6.

The time required to cook meat is affected by num-
erous factors: (a) the method of cooking; (b) the cooking
temperature; (c) weight, surface area, and the shortest
distance to the center of the thickest portion of the meat;
(d) the stage to which the meat is cooked; (e) the compo-
sition of the meat; (f) the degree of post mortem changes;
and (g) the initial temperature of the meat (63). After
considering all of these variables, the meat thermometer
becomes the surest guide for determining the doneness of

meat.

79

TABLE 6. Average roasting time required with an oven temperature of

 

 

 

149° 0
Method of Internal Minutes Per Pound
Cut Cooking Temperature Choice Good Commercial
Arm Pot roast 88° c 30 29 3o
Heel of Round Pot roast 88: c 35 33 34
Top Round Pot roast .88 C 35 36 31
Sirloin Oven roast 82° c to 41 42

 

TABLE 7. Mean "As Purchased" weight of the four cuts in each of three

grades of beef needed for one hundred 2 1/2 ounce portions

 

 

 

"As Purchased" Weight for One Hundred 2 fi—Ounce
Cut
Portions
Choice Good Commercial
Arm 32 34 A 35
Heel of Round 32 31 34
Top Round 31 29 31

Sirloin 30 28 33

 

80
Cost and Yield Data to Aid in Purchasing

From the data on yield obtained in this study, Table
7 has been constructed. It shows the "as purchased" weight
of the four cuts of each grade of beef needed for one
hundred 2 l/2-ounce portions.

The factor representing the ratio of the cost of
cooked sliceable meat per pound to the cost of raw meat
per pound for each roast in the study is given in Table 8.
In all cuts, the factor for the USDA Commercial grade is
_higherithan that of the USDA Good grade. The reverse
would seem to be more logical, and further replications
may have changed this relationship. Regardless or fluctuat-
ing market prices for the four cuts in the three grades,
the current market price may be multiplied by this factor
to give the food service operator the predicted cost per
pound of the cooked sliceable meat from*which the cost per
serving of designated size may be determined.

TABLE 8. Mean reciprocal factors for four cuts in each of three grades

 

 

of beef
Cost Per Cost Per Reciprocal
Cut Grade Pound - Pound - Factor
Raw Meat Sliceable
Meat
Arm Choice $.69 $1.204 1.7449
Good .68 1.243 1.8279
Commercial .67 1.258 1.8776
Reel of Round Choice .59 .987 1.6728
Good .55 .893 1.6236
Commercial .50 .817 1.6340
Top Round Choice .95 1.646, 1.7326
Comercial . 82 1 .416 1 .7268
SiPlOin ChOice e 88 1 016666 1 .6636
Good .86 1.369 1.5918

Commercial .83 1.376 1.6578

 

SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The objectives of this study were to compare various
grades and cuts of beef roast in the low-to-medium price
range for: (1) cooking weight losses, (2) yield of sliceable
cooked meat and edible scrap, (3) palatability, and (4) cost
per cooked pound and edible portion.

Arm, heel of round, and top round roasts of USDA
Choice, Good, and Commercial grades of beef were roasted in
covered pans at a constant oven temperature of 149° C to an
internal temperature of 880 C. The sirloin roasts of USDA
Choice, Good, and Commercial grades of beef were roasted in
uncovered pans at a constant oven temperature of 149° C
to an internal temperature of 820 C. The uncooked weight,
cooked weight, weight and measure of drippings, and the
weight of sliceable meat, edible, and inedible scrap were
recorded for each roast. A l-inch core was removed from
each roast for the Warner-Bratzler shear test. The remain-
der of the roast was sliced into 2 l/2-ounce portions.
Eleven judges scored each sample of cooked beef for color,
flavor, appearance, texture, juiciness, and tenderness.

The score sheet was based on a scale from 1 to 7, with 7
indicating excellent quality and 1 representing unacceptable
quality.

Analyses of variance of cooking losses, yield, pala-

tability, and shear force readings were used to determine

83

whether there were significant differences among the arm,
(heel of round, top round, and sirloin roasts from USDA Choice,
Good, and Commercial grades. The following significant
differences were found:

1. The mean percentages of total cooking losses
for the sirloin and heel of round roasts were
lower than the mean percentages of total
cooking losses for the arm and top round
roasts.

2. The sirloin roast had the highest mean per-
centage of volatile loss and the lowest mean
percentage of total and nonfat dripping losses.

3. The sirloin roast yielded the highest mean
percentage for sliceable meat and the arm roast
the lowest mean percentage.

4. The top round roast yielded a lower mean per-
centage of edible scrap than the heel of round
and the arm roasts and the lowest mean per-
centage of inedible scrap.

5. The mean texture scores of the USDA Choice cuts
were higher than those of the USDA Commercial
cuts.

6. The mean tenderness scores of the USDA Choice
cuts were higher than those of the USDA
Commercial cuts.

7. The sirloin roast was scored higher in juici-

ness than the top round roast.

84

8. The mean juiciness scores of the USDA Choice
cuts were higher than those of the USDA
Commercial cuts.

Analyses of variance revealed no significant differ-
ences attributable to grade or cut in fat dripping losses,
color, flavor, and appearance scores, or shear force read-
ings. The correlations between the objective shear force
readings and the subjective tenderness scores were not
significant.

From the results of the study, a table was constructed
to show the "as purchased” weight of the different grades
and cuts of roast needed for one hundred 2 1/2-ounce portions.
A factor was calculated to show the direct relationship of
the cost per pound of cooked sliceable meat to the cost per
pound of the raw meat. The mean factors for the USDA
Choice, Good, and Commercial arm roasts are 1.74, 1.83, and
1.88, respectively. For the USDA Choice, Good, and Commer-
cial heel of round roasts the mean factors are 1.67, 1.62,
and 1.63, respectively, and for the USDA Choice, Good, and
Commercial top round roasts 1.73, 1.66, and 1.73,respective-
1y. The mean factors for the USDA Choice, Good, and Commer-
cial sirloin roasts are 1.66, 1.59, and 1.66, respectively.
By multiplying the current market price by these factors,
the food service operator can predict the cost per pound
of cooked sliceable meat and the cost per serving of

designated size.

2.

9.

10.

11.

LITERATURE CITED

Aldrich, P. J., and Lows, B. Comparison of grades of
beef rounds: Effect of cooking times on palatabil-
1.195357“ and cost. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 30: 39-43.

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. Cooking time varies with style in
which beef roasts are cut. Yearbook of Agr.

1952-1954 . 1931 .

Alexander, L. 14., and Clark, N. B. Shrinkage and cook-
ing time of rib roasts and beef of different
grades as influenced by style of cutting and method
cg3goasting. U. 8. Dept. Agr. Tech. Bul.

Eaten, w. D. Organoleptic tests 8fiertaining to apples
and pears. Food Res. 11: 1956.

Bevier, 1., and Sprague, E. C. .Roasting of beef. Ill.
Agr. Expt. Sta. Cir. 71.. 1903.

Black, w. 11., 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. 1931. .

Bockian, A. H., Anglemier, A. F., and Esther, L. A.
A comparison of an objective and subjective

measurement of beef tenderness. Food Tech. 12:
483-485. 1958.

Boggs, M. 14., and Hanson, H. L. Analysis of food by
sensory difference tests. Advances in Food Res.

2: 219-2580 19,79.

Byer, A. J., and Abrams, D. A comparison of the tri-
angular and two-sample taste-test methods. Food
TBCh. 7: 185-1870 19530

Cairneross, S. 3., and Sjostrom, L. B. Flavor profiles--
a new approach to flavor problems. Food Tech.
4 3 308-311 0 1950 e

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

86

Child, A. M., and Baldelli, M. Press fluid from
hedged beef muscle. J. Agra Res. 48: 1127-1134.
193 .

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

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

Child, A. M., and Satorius, M. U. Effect of exterior
~ temperature upon the press fluid, shear force,
and cooking losses of roasted beef and pork mus-
(3168. Jo Agr. Res. 57: 865‘871. 1938.

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

Cline, J. A., and Foster, R. The effect of oven
temperature on beef roasts. Mo. Agr. Expt. Sta.
B111 0 328 e 1933 0

Cline, J. A., Lomead’ H. E0, and smrtz, Be Co
The effect of two roasting temperatures on pala-
tability and cooking losses of roasts. Mo. Agr.
Expt. Sta. Bul. 310. 1932.

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

Cline, J. A., Trowbridge, E. A., Foster, M. T., and
Fry, H. A. How certain methods of cooking effect
the quality and palatability of beef. Mo. Agr.
Expt. Sta 0 Bu]. e 293 e 1930.

Cover, S. A new subjective method of testing tender-
ness in mest--the paired-eating method. Food
Res 0 1 e 287“2950 1936.

Cover, 8. The effect of temperature and time of cock-
ing on tenderness of roasts. Texas Agr. Expt.
Sta. Bul. 542. 1937.

Cover, S. Comparative cooking time and tenderness of-
meat cooked in waterIand in an oven of the same
temperature. J. Home Econ. 33: 596. 1941.

24.

25.

26.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.
33.
34.

35.

36.

87

Cover, 3. Effect of metal skewers on cooking time and
tenderness of beef. Food Res. 6: '233-238. 1941.

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

Cover, 3., Bannister, J. A., and Kehlenbrink, E.
Effect of four conditions of cooking on the eat-
ing ggality of two outs of beef. Food Res. 22:
635- 7. 1957.

Cover, 8., Dilsaver, E. M., Hays, R. M., and Smith,
v. H. Retention of B vitamins after large scale
cooking of meat. II. Roasting by two methods.
J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 25: 949-951. 1949.

Cover, 8., McLoren, B. A., and Pearson, P. B. Reten-
tion of the B-vitamins in rare and well-done beef.
J 0 Hut 0 27: 363-37“ 0 19"“ a

Cover, 3., and Shrode, H. C. The effect of moist and
dry heat cooking on palatability scores and
shear force values of beef from animals of
different levels of fleshing. J. Home Econ.

47 : 681-685. 1955.

Cover, 8., and Smith, W. H. Jr. Effect of moist and
dry heat cooking on vitamin retention in meat
from beef animals of different levels of fleshing.
Food Res. 21: 209-216. 1956.

Cover, 8., and Smith,‘w. H. Jr. The effect of two .
methods of cooking on palatability scores, shear
force values, and collagen content of two outs
of beef. Food Res. 21: 312-321. 1956.

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

Crocker, E. C. Measuring'food flavors. Food Res.
2 3 273-286 0 1937 O .

Crocker 6E. C. Flavor of meat. Food Res. 13: 179-183.
1 . . ‘

Davis, J. 0., and Hanson, H. L. Sensory test methods.
I. The triangle intensity (t-i) and related test
systems for sensory analysis. Food Tech. 8: 335-
339. 1954.

Dawson, E. H., Dochterman, E. 0., and‘Vettel, R. S.
Food yields in institutional food service. J.
Am. Diet. Assoc. 34: 371-377. 1958.

37.

38.

39.

no.
41.
42.
43.
an.

45.

no.
1:7.
48.

49.

88

Dawson, E. 11., Harris, B. L., Redstrom, R. A., Alexander,
S. 3., Lamb, J. 0., Doyle, A. F., and Walgamot,
I. H. Sensory methods for mea suring differences
in food quality. U. S. Agr. Inf. Bul. 34. 1951.

Day, J. C. Longissimus dorsi of three grades of
beef; comparison of cooking weight losses, pala-
tability, and edible portion. Unpublished M.S.
Thesis. East Lansing, Michigan. Michigan State
University Library. 1953.

Deatherage, F. E. and Garnatz, G. A comparative study
of tenderness determination by sensory panel and
by shear strength measurements. Food Tech. 6:
260-26“. 1952.

Deatherage, F. E., and Harsham, A. Relagion of tender-
ness of beef to aging time at 33-35 . Food
368. 12: 164-1720 191‘70 .

Deatherage, F. E., and Reiman, W. Measurement of beef
tenderness and tenderization of beef by the
Tenderay process. Food Res. 11: 525-534. 1946.

Dove, w. F. Food acceptability; its determination
and evaluation. Food Tech. 1: 39-50. 1947.

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

Ginger, 3., and Weir, E. Variations in tenderness
within three muscles from beef round. Food Res.
23 : 662-669 a 1958 e

Gottschall, G. Y., and Kies, M. W. Digestion of beef
by papain. Food Res. 7: 373-381. 1942.

Grindley, H. 8., and MoJonnier, T. Experiments on
losses in cooking meat. U. S. Dept. Agr. Off.
Expt. Sta. Bul. 141. 1903.

Griswold, R. M. Effect of different methods of cook-
ing beef round of comercial and prime grades.
Food Res. 20: 171-179. 1955.

Griswold, R. M. The effect of different methods of
cooking beef round of commercial and prime grades.
I. Palatability and shear values. Food Res.

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

6: 517-528. 1941.

500

51-

52.

53.

55-

56.

57.

58.

59.

61 .

62.

63.

89

Halliday, E. G. ObJective tests for cooked food.
FOOd R83. 2: 287-288.. 19370

Halliday, E. G. and Noble, I. T. How to buy beef.
A get of 48 charts. University of Chicago Press.
19 30 ‘

Hankins, 0. G., and Minor, R. L. Freez makes beef
tenderer. Food Ind. 12: 49-51. 1 0.

Hay, P. P., Harrison, D. L., and Vail, G. E. Effects
of a meat tenderizer on less tender cuts of beef
cooked by four methods. Food Tech. 7: 217-220.
1953.

Hiner, R. L., Anderson, E. E., and Fellers, C. R.
Amount and character of connective tissue as it
relates to tenderness in beef muscle. Food Tech.
9: 80-86. 19550

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

Hood, M. P., Thompson, D. W., and Mirone, L. Effect
of cooking methods on low-grade beef. Georgia Agr.
Expt. Sta. Bul. M.S. 4. 1955.

Hurw1cz, H., and Tischer, R. G. Variation in deter-
minations of shear force b means of the Bratzler-
Warner shear. Food Tech. : 391-393. 1954.

Jacobson, M., and Fenton, F. Effects of three levels
of nutrition and age of animal on the quality
of beef. I. Palatability, cooking data, moisture,
fat, and nitrogen. Food Res. 21: 415-426. 1956.

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

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

Latzke, E. Cooking and ca meats. N. Dak. Agri.
Expt. Sta. Cir. 137. 193 .

Laue, E. A., Ishler, N. E., and Bullman, G. A. Relia-
bility of taste testing and consumer testing
methods. I. Fatigue in taste testing. Food
Tech. 8: 387-388. 1954.

Lowe, B. Experimental cookery. 4th ed. N. Y. John
Wiley and Sons, Inc. p. 192-251. 1955.

67.

69.

70.

71.

72.

73.

74.

. 75.

90

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

Lowe, B., and Stewart, G. F. SubJective and obJective
tests as food research tools with special refer-
ence to poultry meat. Food.Tech. 1: 30-38. 1947.

Marshall, N., Wood, L., and Patton, M. B. Cooking
choice grade top round beef roasts - effect of
size and internal temperature. J. Am. Diet.
Assoc. 35: 569-573. 1959. '

Masuda, B. M. Tender cuts of three grades of beef:
Effect of extent of cooking on weight losses and
cost. unpublished M. 3. Thesis. East Lansing,
chgigan. Michigan State University Library.
15.

Miyada, D. 8., and Tappel, A. L. Meat tenderization.
I. Two mechanical devices for’measuring texture.
Food Tech. 10: 142-145. 1956.

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

Nelson, P. M., Lowe, B., and Helser, M. D. The roast
beef, preparation, quality, and palatability.
Iowa Agr. Expt. Sta. Bul. 272. 1930.

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

Overman, A., and Li, J. C. R. Dependability of food
Judge as indicated by ananalysis of scores of a
food testing panel. Food Res. 13: 441-449.. 1948.

Paul, P. C. Tenderness of beef. J. Am. Diet. Assoc.
33 : 8m-89n e 1957 0

Paul, P., and Bratzler, L. J. Studies on tenderness
of beef. II. ‘Varying storage times and condi-
tions. Food Res. 20: 626-634. 1955.

Paul, P. and Bratzler, L. J. Studies on tenderness of
beef. III. Size of shear cores: end to end var-
iation in the semi-membranosus and adductor.

Food Res. 20: 635-638. 1955.

76.

78.

79-

81.

82.

83.

85.

86.

87.

91

Paul, P., Bean, M., and Bratzler, L. J. Effect of
cold storage and method of cooking on comercial
grade cow beef. Mich. Agr. Expt. Sta. Tech.
Bul. 256. 1956.

Paul, P., and Child, A. M. Effect of freezing and
thawing beef muscle upon press fluid losses,
and tenderness. Food Res. 2: 339-347. 1937.

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

Paul, P., and McLean, B. B. Studies on veal. I.
Effect of different internal temperatures on veal
roasts from calves of three different weights.
FOOd R98. 11: 107-1150 19460

Peryam, D. R., and Swartz, V. W. Measurement of .
sensory differences. Food Tech. 4: 390-395.

1950.

Problems of taste testing. (News release) J. Am.
Diet. Assoc. 30: 756. 1954.

Proctor, B. E., Davison, 8., Maleeki, G. J., and Welch,
M. A recording strain-gage denture tenderometer
for foods. I. Instrument evaluation and initial
tests. Food Tech. 9: 471-477. 1955.

Ramsbottom, J. M., and Strandine, E. J. Comparative «
tendemess and identification of muscles in
wggéesale beef cuts. Food Res. 13: 315-330.

1 .

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

Satorius, M.‘J., and Child, A. M. Problems in meat
research. I. Four comparable cuts from one animal.
II. Reliability of Judges' scores. Food Res.

3: 627-6350 19380

Satorius, M. J., and Child, A. M. Effect of cut, grade,
and class upon palatability and composition of
beef roasts. Minn. Agr. Expt. Sta. Tech. Bul.
131. 1938.

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

88.

89.

91.

92.

93.

95.

96.

98.

99-

100.

92

Siemers, L. L., and Hanning, F. A study of certain
factors influencing the Juiciness of meat. Food
ROB. 183113-1200 1953.

Simone, M., Carrol, F., and Chichester, C. 0. Differ-
ences in eating quality factors of beef from 18
and 30 month steers. Food Tech. 13:337-340.

1959.

Simone, M., Carrol, F., and Clegg, M. T. Effect of
degree of finish on differences in quality factors
of beef. Food Res. 23: 32-39. 1958.

Simone, M., Carrol, F., Hinreiner, E., and Clegg, M. T.
Effect of corn, barley, scilbesterol, and degree
of finish upon quality of beef. Food Res. 20:

5 21-529. 1955 .

SJostrom, L. B., and Cairncross, S. B. What makes
flavor leadership? Food Tech. 7: 56-58. 1953.

 

Sleeth, R. G., Kelley, G. G., and Brady, D. E. Shrink-
age and organoleptic characteristics of beef aged
in controlled environments. Food Tech. 12:

90. 1958

Smith, H. R. ObJective measurements of qmlity in foods.
Food Tech. 1: 345-350. 1947. '

Sperring, D. D., Platt, W. T., and Hiner, R. L.
Tenderness in beef muscle as measured by pressure.
Food Tech. 13:155-158.1959.

Stech, 0. D., and West, G. M. Roasting meat at 2500
F. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 30: 160.1954.

Thille, M., Williamson, L. J., Morgan, A. F. Effect
of fat on shrinkage and afieed in the roasting
of beef. J. Home Econ.2 720-733. 1932.

Tucker, H. 0., Voegeli, M. M., and Wellington, G. H.
A cross sectional muscle nomencalture of the beef
carcass. Michigan State College Press, East

Lansing . 1952 .

Vail, G. E., and O'Neill, L. Certain factors which
affect the palatability and cost of roast beef
served in institutions. J. Am. Diet. Assoc. 13:

314-39. 1937. A

Wanderstock, J. J., and Miller, J. 1. Quality and
palatability of beef as affected by method of
feeding 93nd carcass grade. Food Res. 13: 291-
303. 1

101.

102.

103.

1w.

105.

93

West, B. B., and.Wood, L. Food service in institutions.
rd ed. N. Y. John Wiley and Sons, Inc. p. 46-

1. 1955-

Wierbicki, E., Cahill, U. R., and Deatherage, F. E.
Effects of added NaCl, KCl, C8012, MgClQ, and
citric acid on meat shrinkage at 70° C. and of
added sodium chloride on drip losses after
fgeezing and thawing. Food Tech. 11: 74-76.
1 57.

Wierbicki, E., Kunkle, L. E., and Deatherage, F. E.
Changes in the water-holding capacity and cationic
shifts during the heating and freezing and thaw-
ing of meat as revealed by a simple centrifugal
method for measuring shrinkage. Food Tech. 11:
69-730 19570

Winegarden, M. W., Lowe, B., Hastelic, J., Kline,
E. A., Plagge, A. R. and Shearer, P. 3. Physical
changes of connective tissues of beef during
heating. Food Res. 17: 172-184. 1952.

Ziegler, P. T. The meat we eat. 4th ed. Danville,
Illinois. The Interstate Printers and Publishers.
p. 254-308. 19530

A PPENDIX

TABLE 9. Percentages of cooking losses from four cuts in each of three

grades of beef

 

 

 

Cut Repli- Fat Dripping Losses Nonfat Dripping Losses
cation Choice Good Comer. Choice Good Comer.
Arm. 1 3.37 3.25 2.36 . 18.29 23.19 23.60
2 2.67 2.50 3.68 18.57 23.70 21.32
3 4.19 1.54 3.75 15.38 22.64 23.23
4 2.77 1.42 2.82 22.68 27.75 21.58
Avg. 3.25 2.18 3.15 18.73 24.32 22.44
Heel of 1 2.09 3.23 .82 16.01 22.28 26.24
Round 2 4.37 3.64 1.28 10.63 18.50' 17.67
3 2.62 1.60 3.15 12.76 10.05 17.49
4 2.96 1.85 A 2.66 9.89 20.61 17.24
Avg. 3.01 2058 1098 12032 17086 19066
Top 1 1.91 3.42 .82 25.36 20.11 25.92
Round 2 3.02 2.72 1.41 20.54 15.06 33.73
' 3 2.48 4.13 3.01 20.87 20.01 21.99
4 1.88 1.56 2.45 22.43 27.77 26.47
Avg. 2.32 2.96 1.92 22.30 20.74 26.28
Sirloin 1 4.88 2.25 2.78 2.93 .13 .25
2 3031 3033 031 033 10010 .62
3 5.14 2.78 1.22 .17 .21 .94
a 3.13. 3.31 1.55 .22 .91 .15
Avg. [+012 2.92 10"? 091 058 0149

 

 

 

94

TABLE 9. (Continued)

 

Total Dripping Losses Volatile Losses Total Cooking Losses

 

 

Choice Good Commer. Choice Good Commer. Choice Good Commer.
21.66 26.44 25.96 8.92 10.34 9.62 30.57 36.78 35.58
21.24 26.20 25.00 12.39 11.23 7.65 33.63 37.43 32.65
19.57 24.18 26.98 10.87 8.20 7.91 30.43 32.38 34.88
25.45 29.17 24.40 10.00 6.77 8.93 35.45 35.94 33.33
21.98 26.50 25.59 10.55 9.14 8.53 32.52 35.63 34.11
18.10 25.51 27.06 9.52 8.16 7.06 27.62 33.67 34.12
15.00 22.14 18.95 16.82 12.24 11.58 31.82 34.38 30.53
15.38 11.65 20.64 -14.42 15.53 - 14.22 29.81 27.18 34.86
12.85 22.46 19.90 18.44 8.90 8.90 31.28 31.36 28.80
15.33 20.44 21.64 14.80 11.21 10.44 30.13 31.65 32.08
27.27 23.53 26.74 10.39 10.59 8.14 37.66 34.12 34.88
23.56 17.78 32.14 11.54 22.22 9.52 35.10 40.00 41.67
23.35 24.14 25.00 11.01 9.85 13.46 34.36 33.99 38.46
24.31 29.33 28.92 12.15 7.69 7.83 36.46 37.02 36.75
24.62 23.70 28.20 11.27 12.59 9.74 35.90 36.28 37.94
7.81 2.38 3.03 18.75 28.57 28.28 26.56 30.95 31.31
3.64 4.37 .93 30.00 28.16 31.31 33.64 32.52 32.24
5.31 2.99 2.16 25.60 28.36 28.11 30.92 31.34 30.27
3.35 4.25 1.70 30.73 23.11 28.51 34.08 27.36 30.21
5.03 3.50 1.96 26.27 27.05 29.05‘ 33.80 30.54 31.01

 

TABLE 10. Percentages of total cooked meat, sliceable meat, edible and

inedible scrap from four cuts of beef in each of three grades

 

Sliceable Meat

 

 

Cut Replication
Choice Good Commercial

3 55.65 56.97 51.16

4 53.86 56.25 54.17

Avg. 53.43 48.78 49.65

Heel of 1 63.81 58.16 57.65
Round 2 47.73 50.00 55.79
3 56.25 60.19 43.81

4 51.40 55.72 58.12

Avg. 54.80 56.02 53.84

Top Round 1 59.71 63.53 ' 59.30
2 52.40 48.33 55.36

3 56.17 62.81 51.20

4 54.14 58.17 57.83

Avg. 55.61 58.21 55.92

Sirloin 1 65.63 60.71 54.55
2 51.36 58.50 55.84

3 57.00 58.21 56.49

4 58.10 63.92 58.30

Avg. 58.02 60.34 56.30

 

95

 

 

 

 

TABLE 10. (Continued)
Edible Scrap Inedible Scrap Total Cooked Meat
Choice Good Comer. Choice Good Comer. Choice Good Comer.
3.82 10.34 10.58 8.28 5.75 10.58 69.42 63.22 64.43
12.39 21.39 7.14 7.08 6.42 10.20 66.37 62.57 67.34
7.39 5.12 6.51 6.52 5.53 7.44 69.56 67.62 65.11
6.59 5.73 5.36 4.09 2.08 7.14 64.54 64.06 66.67
7.55 10.65 7.40 6.49 4.95 8.84 67.47 64.37 65.89
2.86 5.10 5.88 5.71 3.06 2.35 72.38 66.32 65.88
12.27 8.33 10.53 8.18 7.29 3.16 68.18 65.62 69.48
6.73‘ 7.77 15.60 7.21 4.85 5.73 70.19 72.81 65.14
8.38 9.32 6.81 8.94 3.60 6.28 68.72 68.64 71.21
7.56. 7.63 9.71 7.51 4.70 4.39 69.87 68.35 67.93
1.30 1.18 5.81 1.30 1.18 - 62.34 65.89 65.11
7.45 9.17 2.98 5.05 2.50 - 64.90 60.00 58.34
6.83 2.22 6.49 2.64 .99 3.85 65.64 66.02 61.54
7018 [0081 L022 2021 .. 1.20 63.53 62.98 63.25
5.69 4.35 4.88 2.80 1.17 1.26 64.10 63.72 62.06
4.69 5.95 7.07 3.13 2.38 7.07 73.45 69.04 68.69
9.55 4.85 11.21 5.45 4.13 .70 66.36 67.48 67.75
7.25 5.97 10.81 4.83 4.48 2.43 69.08 68.66 69.73.
5.03 4.48 5.32 2.79 4.25 6.17 65.92 72.65 69.79
6.63 5.31 8.60 4.05 3.81 4.09 68.70 69.46 68.99

 

 

 

 

TABLE 11. Mean taste panel scores* and shear readings** for four cuts
from each of three grades of beef

Cut Repli- Aroma Flavor Color
cation Choice Good Com. Choice Good Com. Choice Good Com.
Arm 1 4.18. 3.91 4.40 4.18 4.18 4.40 4.27 4.73 4.90
2 4.18 5.45 4.27 4.18 5.09 4.18 4.55 5.36 4.64
3 4.64 5.18 5.64 5.00 5.00 5.18 5.18 4.82 5.09
4 5.00 4.90 4.82 5.09 4.30 4.45 4.82 4.20 4.45
Avg. 4.50 4.86 4.78 4.61 4.64 4.55 4.71 4.78 4.77
Heel 0f 1 L082 3073 #060 #055 4027 3090 #073 hoo9 bozo
Round 2 3.64 5.18 5.00 4.18 4.91 4.55 4.09 4.82 4.91
3 3.91 4.09 4.55 4.45 4.55 5.09 4.73 5.00 4.64
4 4.82 4.80 4.45 4.73 4.40 4.09 4.82 4.30 4.64
Avg. L030 4.45 4.65 Ache L053 4.41 “059 #055 L060
Top 1 5.09 5.00 4.00 5.09 4.45 3.80 5.36 4.64 4.20
Round 2 4.82 4.55 4.45 4.55 4.27 3.64 4.36 4.27 4.18
3 4.27 4.64 4.09 4.55 4.00 4.18 4.73 4.64 4.36
4 4.64 4.70 4.64 4.73 4.30 4.18 5.00 4.20 4.55
Avg. 4.71 4.72 4.30 4.73 4.26 3.95 4.86 4.44 4.32
Sirloin 1 4.82 4.64 4.40 5.00 4.82 3.60 5.27 4.73 5.00
2 5.18 4.64 4.00 5.27 4.73 3.73 5.00 4.82 4.73
3 4.64 4.45' 4.36 4.82 4.18 4.00 5.09 4.73 4.27
4 5.73 4.20 4.00 5.82 4.80 4.27 5.64 5.50 4.18
Avg. 4.48 4.48 4.19 5.23 4.63 3.90 5.25 4.84 4.55

 

* Mean is based on eleven samples.
Commercial grade and the fourth replication of Good grade, the
mean is based on ten samples.

** Mean is based on five readings.

In the first

replication of

—-o- mw—~

 

96

 

 

 

 

TABLE 11. (Continued)

__ Texture Juiciness Tenderness Shear Readings
Choice Good Com. Choice Good Com. Choice Good Com. Choice Good Com.
4.55 4.27 4.80 4.64 3.45 4.20 4.27 5.18 5.18 19.00 22.69 13.5C
4.82 4.82 4.00 3.82 4.55 4.45 4.09 4.00 3.09 16.42 20.75 18.20
5.55 5.27 5.09 5.36 5.55 5.00 5.36 5.55 4.73 14.17 16.05 14.70
5.27 4.40 4.00 4.64 3.60 3.73 4.82 4.20 3.45 20.33 15.99 18.69
5.05 4.69 4.47 4.62 4.29 4.35 4.46 4.73 4.11 17.48 18.87 16.27
4.18 4.82 4.50 4.36 3.82 3.70 3.64 5.45 4.50 21.00 26.35 22.50
5.09 4.55 5.00 4.00 3.91 4.36 5.09 4.55 5.09 17.95 9.38 20.15
5.45 5.09 4.45 5.09 4.36 4.00 5.45 5.00 4.55 16.56 17.45 12.75
5.45 5.00 4.55 1464 4.00 3.82 4.91 4.90 2.82 25.95 22.50 35.7C
5.04 4.87 4.63 4.52 4.02 3.97 4.77 4.98 4.24 20.37 18.92 22.77
4.55 4.09 4.00 4.00 3.36 3.10 5.18 4.82 4.60 18.00 29.40 18.30
4.55 4.18 3.36 3.27 3.09 2.64 4.64 3.00 3.00 20.25 30.00 23.85
5.09 4.18 3.82 4.09 3.73 3.00 5.27 4.73 3.55 17.15 20.70 23.80
5.36 4.50 4.09 4.45 3.40 3.45 5.27 4.40 3.18 19.00 20.00 21.70
4.89 4.24 3.82 3.95 3.40 3.05 5.09 4.24 3.58 18.60 25.03 21.91
5.18 ‘4.64 3.60 5.27 4.45 3.90 5.64 5.73 2.30 19.97 21.80 24.80
5.27 4.91 4.00 5.36 4.64 3.55 5.64 4.36 2.55 20.65 20.15 41.90
5.55 4.91 4.00 4.91 4.36 3.91 5.27 4.36 3.09 18.30 24.65 15.95
5.55 5.30 3.36 5.09 5.00 4.18 5.36 5.40 2.45 18.90 16.55 26.90
5.39 4.94 3.74 5.16 4.61 3.89 5.48 4.96 2.60 19.46 '20.79 27.39

 

97

TABLE 12. Analyses of variance of cooking losses for four cuts from

each of three grades of beef

 

Mo's o

 

Cooking Losses Source of D.F. F.
Variance
Cut 3 1277.2190 55.39188*-I
Fat Dripping Grade 2 4.3683 2.0973
Cut 3 .6227 .2990
Total Dripping Grade 2 28.3986 1.1940
Cut 3 1250. 5045 52. 5782-M
Volatile Grade 2 6.6184 .7302
Cut 3 836.3362 92.2752**
Total Grade 2 7. 8575 1 .4308

 

** Significant at the 1 per cent level of probability

TABLE 13. Analyses of variance of yield for four cuts from each of

three grades of beef

 

 

Yield Source of D.F. M.S. F.
Variance

Sliceable Meat Grade 2 16.3795 .6879
Cut 3 128.1126 5.3806**

Edible Scrap Grade 2 2.8671 .2986
Cut 3 32.2637 3.3605*

Inedible Scrap Grade 2 9.9373 3.0630
Cut 3 56.1199 17.2980“

Total Cooked Meat Grade 2 7.8337 1.4250
Cut 3 87.1669 15.8566**

 

* Significant at the 5 per cent level of probability.

** Significant at the 1 per cent level of probability.

99

TABLE 14. Analyses of variance of taste panel scores and shear force

readings for four cuts from each of three grades of beef

 

 

Palatability Source of '
Factors Variance D.F. M.S. F.
Aroma Grade 2 .12 .57
Cut 3 .13 .62
Color Grade 2 .36 2.77
Cut 3 .35 2.69
Flavor Grade 2 1.27 3.26
Cut 3 .21 .54
Texture Grade 2 3.62 9.78*
Cut 3 .616 1073
Juiciness Grade 2 2.30 12.11**
Cut 3 2.82 14.84**
Tenderness
Panel Scores Grade 2 8.20 5.62*
cut 3 .33 .23
Shear Readings Grade 2 39.4640 1.4127
Cut 3 58.7317 2.1024

 

* Signigicant at the 5 per cent level of probability.

** Significant at the 1 per cent level of probability.

100

 

 

 

 

TABLE 15. Roasting time required with an oven temperature of 1490 C
Cut Internal Ropli- Minutes Per Pound
Temperature cation Grade
Choice Good Commercial

Arm 88° C 1 33 28 3o
2 30 32 32

3 31 2 28

4 25 28 30

Avg. 3O 29 30

Heel of 88° C 1 4.1 39 36
Round 2 33 31 39
‘ 3 32 39 31
4 32 24 30

Avg. 35 33 34

Top Round 88° C 1 39 37 29
2 36 38 32

3 35 33 28

4 31 34 33

Avg. 35 36 31

Sirloin 82° c 1 36 47 1.1.
2 41 43 38

3 39 39 44

4 43 33 43

Avg. 40 41 42

 

101

Dear Panel Member,

You.have been chosen to participate in this study
because of your interest in high-quality food and your
discriminating taste. The purpose of this study is to de-
termine the acceptability of beef roasts, graded USDA .
Choice, Good, and Commercial which have been prepared from
the sirloin butt, round, and clod or chuck.

These testing periods will be held every

 

at __ for twelve weeks. Your presence at each session
is very important. Please notify me, in advance, if you
are unable to be present at any time.

This is perhaps, the first time that some of you
have been a member of a tasting panel; therefore, I have
made a few suggestions to help you.with your sampling and
Judsins-

1. Do not eat, smoke, or drink (unless water)

one hour before the Judging period.

2. Check to see that your code number, the date,
and the code number of the particular sample
of meat which you are scoring is on the top
of each score card. ‘YOu will score four
samples of beef roast at each session.

3. Do not talk or compare notes with other panel
members during the scoring period.

4. Take several swallows of water between each
sample of meat to remove the flavor of the

preceding sample from your mouth.

102

Judge each piece of beef roast for aroma,
color, flavor, texture, tenderness, and
Juiciness. Indicate by‘a check mark on the
scale from 1 to 7 (a score of 1 indicates very
poor quality and a score of 7, extremely good
quality) your score for each of these char-
acteristics.

Then check the term which best describes the
aroma, color, flavor, and texture.

Judge aroma first by removing the cover from
the dish and sniffing.

The following definitions of terms are given
to help you select the best term.

a. Aroma

full, rich aroma is meaty and pleasant.
foreign aroma is fishy or sulfury.
sharp aroma is acid, tart, or biting.
strorgaroma is intense and offensive.

faint aroma is one lacking in full,
typical meat odor.

>>>>>

b. Color

Light brown and dark brown are character-
istic colors of roast beef.

Grey is sometimes the color of overcooked
beef.

Irridescent is a "mother of pear1"effect.

0. Flavor

A bland flavor is one lacking in flavor.
A rich flavor is full and meaty.
A strong flavor is intense and offensive.
An old taste is musty or stale.

d. Texture

A powdery texture is crumbly.

A gelatinous texture is Jelly-like.

A stringy texture is ropy--it resembles
thin, long strings .

A firm texture is one which is not
crumbly. It holds it shape.

103

e. Tenderness
This is an obJective measure of the number
of times you chew a one inch square piece
of roast beef. Be sure to chew each piece
of meat thoroughly until nothing remains
in your'mouth. Do not swallow a piece of
meat which is only m1: Chewed- After
the first Judging session,you will be
given a scale to aid you in relating the
number of chews to the tenderness of the
beef roast.

r. Juiciness
A well done meat is usually very Juicy,
but if you can press the piece of roast ‘
with your fork and Juice runs out, this
sample can be rated extremely or very
Juicy. _ ' '

9. After>you.have finished Judging the four
samples at each session, check your score

cards for completeness with me.

Sample Code

 

 

 

SCORE SHEET FOR BEEF ROASTS

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Judge
Date
gFactor 7 6 5 h ‘ 3 2 1 CHECK MOST DESCRIPTIVE TERM
Aroma Full, rich Sharp Faint;
? extremely very good fair poor very extremely 1'
good good poor poor Foreign Strong
Color Light Brown Light Grey
extremely very good fair poor very extremely
good good poor poor Dark brown Irridescent
Flavor Of Bland Strong
loan Meat 1 ...... ...—-
extremely very good fair poor very extremely Rich 01d
good good A poor J poor ““"‘
Texture - : Powdery Stringy
extremely very fine fair coarse & very coarse extremely;
fine fine stringy 8: stringy coarse & ' Gelatinous Firm
__ ' stringy ,
Tend . ' W
erress j 5 A Number of chews
extremely very tender 3. fair tough very extremely
___ tender tender ‘ tough tough
Juiciness ‘ _ ;
extremely very juicy fair dry very extremely
Juicy a juicy ' dry dry

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

105

  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
  

CHUCK, 0R CROSS ARM, STEAK

Brachiocephalicus
Biceps brachii
Brachialis
Triceps brachii, lateral head
Triceps brachii, long head
Tensor fasciae antibrachii
Cutaneus Trunci
Coracobrachialis

Triceps brachii, medial head
Deep pectoral
Superficial pectoral
Rectus thoracis
Intercostal muscles
Serratus ventralis

 

*

ZIt‘XQHmQ'flMUOwb

G—‘\

 

tn
0
D
(D
m

...:
o

Humerus
2. Ribs

 

 

 

Plate 3. Location of triceps brachii muscle used in study.

106

HEEL-CUT ROUND STEAK
Muscles

A
*B

HHIEO'UL‘UUO

Bones
1 Femur
2 Patella (kneecap)

Semimembranosus
Semitendinosus
Gracilis
Gastrocnemius (medial head)
Biceps femoris

Superficial digital flexor
Sartorius

Vastus intermedius
Vastus lateralis
Vastus medialis

    
  
  

 

 

 

 

 

Plate 4. Location of semitendinosus muscle used in study.

 

107

 

 

Muscles

*A Semimem-
branosus

B Semitendin-
osus

C Gracilis

D Adductor

E'Biceps femoris

E Biceps femoris
(ischiatic head)

  

 

F Pectineus

G Sartorius

H Vastus intermedius Bones

I Vastus lateralis 1, Femur

J vastus medialis 2. Subpelvic tendon

K Rectus femoris

Plate 5. Location of semimembranosus muscle used in study.

WEDGE-BONE SIRLOIN
Muscles

A,E Tensor fasciae latae
Vastus medialis

Rectus femoris

Vastus lateralis
Ilia-psoas siliacus and
psoas major
Gluteus accessorius
Gluteus profundus
Gluteus medius
Biceps femoris
Sacrococcygeus
lateralis
Multifidus dorsi
Sartorius

4:
3!.“ 7891-4310 'flUOUfl

Bones

1. Shaft of ilium
2. Sacral vertebra

108

84

H

 

 

 

 

Plate 6. Location of rectus

emoris muscle used in study.

 

Cr"I'-."',"v I ' ’ ‘ "l “3" ’ '7 h:
“X.A‘_,.:’J LIE. $14.59.: "{I(‘,x"0331
. .44 4,4 . l I

9

W\
\
Jar
€ \
it"“‘.’"'-“'T‘ \ ‘ ‘ > 1W
.3“ -.' K' 1' F" {‘1 ~o.-. .1.
.1 ‘I 5 "

«.1>.;.L’..\ 3.;‘rf _
.,.. "I.“

0" 1.3"." ‘2 ’V.|.‘41.'n ' 6.. I. .
'* ’ ”5 L. an 1., r..sz'..1.»>4..:;«.ri
Kolmer, Armina
USDA Choice, Good, and Commerical
Grades of Four Low-To-fiedium.Price

Beef Roasts: Cooking Losses,.
Yield, Pelrtebility, and Cost

 

HHHHH HHHH HHHH HHH HH HHHHH

 

31293 02466 93 370