by Ruby Cannon Martin, B. S. Approved

PALATABILITY AND COOKING LOSSES IN STANDING-RIB ROASTS

AS INFLUENCED BY THE ROUGHAGE IN THE

RATION OP THE ANIMAL

A THESIS

IN POODS AND NUTRITION

by

Ruby Cannon Martin, B. S.

Approved

Advisory Commflfto©

Head of the Department

Dean of Graduate Studies

Texas Technological College^^ XECHHOIOGICAI COUEGE

August, 1951 LUBBOCK, TEXAS LIBRARY

PALATABILITY AliD JOOKING LOSSES IN STANDING-RIB liOASTS

AS INPLUIiNGED BY THE ROUGHAGE IN THE

RATION OF THE ANIML

A THESIS

IN POODS AND NUTRITION

Submitted to the Faculty of the Division of Graduate Studies of Texas Technological College

in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of

MASTER OP SCIENCE

by

Ruby Gannon Martin, B. S u

Bula, Texas

August, 1951

AGKNCVLEDGEMENT

The writer is indebted to Professor Jonnie McGrery

Michie, Head of the Department of Poods and Nutrition, for

her constructive criticisms and helpful suggestions in con

ducting the cookery experiments and in the preparation of

this thesis. Many suggestions in the presentation and arrange

ment of the statistical data were received from Dr. iIina .'olf

Larab, Associate Professor of Foods and Nutrition.

The writer would like to express her appreciation to

the members of the judging panel for their splendid co-operation

and interest shown in the organoleptic testing. The members

of the panel were: Dean Margaret W. Weeks, of the Division

of Home Economics; Dean W. L. Stangel, of the Division of

Agriculture; Dr. Nell Gasey Pine, Assistant Dean of Agriculture;

Professor Vivian J. Adams, Head of the Department of Home

tCconomics Education; Professor Jonnie McCrery Michie, Head of

the Department of Poods and Nutrition; Dr. Mina Wolf Lamb,

Associate Professor of Poods and Nutrition; and Mrs. Wilma

Taylor, Secretary of the Department of Home Economics Education.

To Mr. Fred W. Boren, Instructor in Animal Husbandry,

the writer would like to extend her appreciation for his help

ful suggestions in conducting the cookery experiments.

ill

TABLE OP CONTENTS

Pag©

LIST OP TABLES v

LIST OP GRAPHS vi

Chapter

I. INTRODUCTION 1

II. REVIEW OP LITERATURE 5

A. Diet of th© Animal 5 B. Tdxturo . . . . . . . . 6 C. Tonderneas • 7 D. Juiciness 9 E. Flavor and Aroma 12

III. EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE 14

A. Storage and Preparation of Rib Cuts 14

B. Selection of Ovens 14 C. List of Bquipment • • • . . . . . . 15 D. Trial Roasts 15 E. Method of Testing 16 F. Experimental Roasts . 16

IV. EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 19

V. DISCUSSION OP EXPERIMENTAL RESULTS 37

VI. CONCLUSIONS 40

LIST OP REFERENCES 42

APPENDIX 45

iv

LIST OP TABLES

Table

I. Data Sheet for Pour-rib Roasts

II. Data Sheet for Three-rib Roasts

III. Cooking Losses Incurred During Cooking ^ the Pour-rib Roasts • •

IV. Cooking Losses Incxirred During Cooking the Threo-rib Roasts

V. Compilation of Data on the Three and Pour-rib Roasts • • ^-

VI. Pounds of Cooking Losses Per Minute of Cooking Tiaie, Per Degree Internal Temperature Rise for the Pour-rib Roasts . . . . 28

VII. Pounds of Cooking Losses Per Minute of Cooking Time, Per Degree Internal Temperature Rise for the Thr©©-rib Roasts • • . • 2i

VIII. R©lation of the Animal's Peed to the Cooking Loss 5G

IX. Compilation of Judges* Scores , . 2S

X. Relation of the animal's Peed to the Palatability Soores • • . . . • • « «

LIST OP GRAPHS

Figure Page

1. Relation of the Animal*s Peed to the Cooking Loss • 31

2. Relation of the Animal's Feed to the Palatability Soores • 36

vl

CHAPT5H I

INTRODUCTION

Beef consiimers have long been interested in the qual

ity and palatability of beef from carcasses of various grades.

Even though the government and several of tne lar^e meat pack

ing companies have tried to use a form of grading, the present

grades mean very little because the grades, for the most part,

vary in terms of the judgment of the person doing the grading.

The government grades are based on the finish, quality, and

conformation of the animal and are, listed in descending

order, U. S. Prime, U. S, Choice, U. S. Good, U. S. Utility,

U. S. Gutter, and U. S. Canner. Unfortunately, the grading

is done for the most part only on those carcasses which are

shipped interstate or out of the United states. The large

meat packing firms also have a system of grading, but these

grades apply only to the meat sold by each individual company.

As an example, the highest grade meat sold by Swift and Com

pany is called "Premium," not U. S. Prime or U. S. Choice.

Agriculturists are interested in producing an animal

of high quality at a minimum cost. The major crops of the

South Plains of Texas are cotton and sorghums; therefore, the

Animal Husbandry Department of Texas Technological College

conducted a series of feeding experiments (1) for the purpose

-1-

-2-

of helping the South Plains farmer utilize his home-grown

feeds and the by-products of the farm. The objectives of

the research were to determine:

1. the value of cottonseed hulls in replacing sumac

sorghum silage as roughage;

2. the value of cottonseed hulls and sumac sorghum

fed together in varying levels as roughage; and

3. the comparative value of full and deferred feed

ing of grain with cottonseed hulls as roughage.

Ten dereford steers were alloted to six lots accord

ing to weights (1). Tne experiments began ^ ovember 22, lj49,

and ended April 25, 1950. Definite quantities of alfalfa hay

and limestone flour were fed to eliminate any variation be

tween the steers in any one lot due to a vitamin A or mineral

deficiency. All lots received comparable amounts of cotton

seed meal, ground mllo grain, alfalfa hay, and limestone

flour with the exception of Lot VI. Lot VI received no grain

for the first 56 days of the experiment; however, in compar

ison with the other lots, the amount of cottonseed meal was

doubled. After this 56-day period, grain and meal were fed

in the same amounts as the other lots during the rest of the

feeding period. The rougnage fed the steers in eacn lot was

as follows:

-3-

Lot Nos. Roujhage

I Sumac sorghum silage

II Cottonseed hulls

III 26 per cent cottonseed hulls 75 per cent silage

IV 75 per cent cottonseed hulls 25 per cent silage

V 50 per cent cottonseed hulls

50 per cent silage

VI Cottonseed hulls

At th© end of the experiment the cattle were consigned

to the Texas Livestock Marketing Association of Port Worth,

Texas. The steers were purchased by Armour and Company,

April 28, 1950, on the basis of two U. S. grades. Good and

Commercial. The steers from each lot received the following

market grades:

Market Grades:

Live:

High good Good Commercial

Chilled carcass:

High good Good Low good Commercial

I

5 4 1

3 5 2 0

I I

3 4 3

1 4 3 2

Lot

I I I

3 7 0

1 6 3 0

Number

IV

3 6 1

0 8 2 0

V

4 4 2

1 7 2 0

VI

3 5 2

1 7 2 0

-4-

Permission was obtained from Armour and Company by

the Department of Poods and Nutrition of Texas Tecixnolojical

College to purchase the seventh througn the thirteenth rib,

wholesale cut. New York Style, from the same side of one

animal from each lot. The wholesale cut was removed from

steers which received the market grade of Hl. h Good, both

for the live animal and the chilled carcass with the excep

tion of the carcass from Lot IV which received the market

grade of Good. This exception was due to the failure of th©

carcass from Lot IV to receive the market grade of High Good.

Cooking experiments on the meat were conducted to

determine:

1, the palatability of the meat as influenced by the

roughage included in the ration of the animal; and

2. the losses incxirred in cooking the meat as influ

enced by th© roughage Included in the ration of

the animal.

CHAPTER II

REViJiV OF LITSRATUR:';:

Beef consumers have long been interested in the qual

ity and palatability of beef. The factors influencing the

palatability of meat both in the cooked and the uncooked

state are the diet of the animal and the texture, th© tender

ness, the juiciness, and the flavor and aroma of the meat.

These factors will be discussed in the above order,

showing the influence of each on the palatability of beef.

Diet of the animal: In the past, meat with yellow

fat and dark lean was a low market grade of beef. Yellow fat

was believed to bo an indication that the meat was from an

old animal. Recent investigation has shown that the diet of

the animal can affect the color of both the fat and the lean.

Cambell, Ellis, and Madison (2) found that fat from ,:rass

fed cattle was more yellow and less firm than fat from grain

and hay fattened animals. Black, Warner, and Wilson (3)

found the muscles of grass fattened animals to be darker red

in color than the muscles from animals fed grain supplements.

The animals which have muscles of this dark rod color are

called "dark cutters."

Bull, Snapp, and Husk (4) found that the meat from

animals fattened on grass was less palatable than meat from

-5-

-6-

animals receiving supplemental oono©ntrates. They also state

that the pH of "dark cutters" is higher. This statement is

in agreement with the work of Hall, Latschar, and Mackintosh

(5) who found one of the usual characteristics of this dark-

cutter beef to be an abnormally high pH due to smaller amoxints

of lactic acid in the muscles. These findin:;s, however, were

not in accord with those of Wanderstook and Miller (6) who

observed that the pH range of meat from grass-fattened animals

was 5.42 to 5.80. This is considered to be the normal ran:*e

for beef.

Hankins and Poster (7) showed that the feeding of

concentrates in addition to ^rass had a markjd effect on the

quality of the meat in that the proportion of meat to bone

was increased. An experiment conducted by .Vilson and Company

(8) indicated that grain-fed animals had a higher carcass

grade, a greater dressing percentage and a lower percentage

of bone in proportion to the meat.

Texture: Skeletal muscle is composed of fibers held

together by connective tissue and surrounded by a sheath of

heavier connective tissue. Each fiber is elongated, cylindrical,

and multi-nucleated, th© nuclei being elliptical in shape.

£.ach fiber is enclosed in a sarcolemraa, a thin, colorless

membrane. Lowe (9) found that the number of fibers in a

bundle indicates the fineness of texture; the greater th©

niimbor of fibers, the finer the texture. The connective

-7-

tissue enclosing each muscle or bundle of fibers is known as

the oipmysium or muscle sheath.

Tenderness: Ransbottom and Stradine (10) define

tenderness as the state of being easily comminuted or masti

cated. The tenderness of meat is dependent on the amount of

structural protein, cookinij; temperature, storage, freezing,

position of the muscle and the age of the animal. The two

types of structural protein found in a muscle are elastin and

collagen. The normal cooking process has a hardening and

drying effect on elastin but causes part of th© collagen to

become hydrolyzed into gelatin. The hydrolysis of collagen

tends to increase the tenderness, while the hardening and

drying of the elastin tends to decrease the tenderness.

Paul, Lowe, and Buford (11) found that th© ©xtent of hydrol

ysis of collagen Increased as the length of cooking time

increased. Cover (12) found that a low rate of heat penetra

tion increases the tenderness. Experiments conducted by

Cover showed that meat cooked for a long period of time at a

low even temperature of 80^ C (176° P) to an internal tem

perature of 700 G (158° P) was more tender than meat cooked

a shorter length of time at a higher oven temperature. This

increase of tenderness was attributed to the conversion of

collagen to gelatin. Salorius and Child (13) state that the

tenderness of meat decreases when cooked to an internal tem-

p©ratur© above 67© C (152.6° P). They attribute this to the

-8-

toughening effect of heat in coagulating and hardening the

muscle fiber proteins.

High temperature during cooking toughens the muscles

of meat due to the action of heat on the prot©in strands.

In th© past, prolonged cooking time was believed to reduce

the tenderness to the same ©xtent as does a high temperature.

Cover (14) found that metal sk©w©rs will d©crease th© oooking

tim© but will incr©ase th© toughn©s8 of m©at. She suggested

that the amount of eollagen changed to gelatin was greater

when the cooking period was not shortened by the use of the

metal skewers.

Freezing and storage before oooking influence the

tenderness of meat. When be©f Is first killod th© musclss

ar© soft and pliablo. Within twenty-foiir hours a ph©nom©non

known as rigor mortis occurs. This is th© contraction of th©

structural protain. In this stag©, th© m©at is tough and

stringy. Aftsr ©ight to nine days the rigor mortis is over-

com© and th© musol©s again become soft and pliable. This

passing of rigor mortis and the storage th©r©aft©r is callsd

aging. Deatherage and Harsham (15) conducted experiments on

fourteen beef carcasses to d©t©rmine th© ©ffect of aging on

th© t©nderness of b©©f. It was found that t©nd©rn©ss in-

crsassd as th© storage time increased up to seventeen days,

but after that time, there was no improvement and in some

cases a slight decrees© in t©nd©m©ss. Griswold and Warton

-9-

(16) found a temperatur© slightly above freezing (33-35° F)

to be the most desirable for the storage of beef.

Freezing has been found to increase the tenderness

of meat by acting as a tenderizer. In freezlnj, ice crystals

ar© formed, their size depending on the freezing temperature

and th© length of storage. Lowe (9) states that larger

crystals ar© formed in slow freezing and that the crystals

tend to increase in size during storage. The position of

the muscle on the animal also effects the tenderness. Muscles

which are exercised to a small ©xtent, especially those along

the backbone, are more tender. Ransbottom and Stradine (10)

found that differences in tenderness occur between cuts within

a carcass, between muscles within a cut, and occasionally be

tween parts of the same muscle.

Mitchell, Hamilton, and Haines (17) in a study on

connective tissue as related to beef muscle found that tender

muscles wore lower in elastin than tough muscles.

Th© age of the animal also affects th© tenderness of

meat. The meat from an older anl.nal contains more structural

protein, especially elastin.

Juiciness; Juiciness is another factor to be consid

ered in th© palatability of meat. The greater the loss of

juices incurred In th© cooking process, the less juicy and

less palatable the meat. A decrease in weight accompanies

the loss of juice.

The proper cooking temperature for roasts has been

-10-

discussed by many authoritias. Th© juiciness, as well as th©

t©nd©rnoss, is affected by the cooking t©mp©ratur©s. Th©r©

is general agreement that low or moderate oven tomp©ratur©s

(260-375° F) caus© l©ss shrinkage in roasting meat tnan do

high oven temperatures. High temperatures cause a rapid

coagulation of th© cell proteins of th© muscle tissues and

an accompanying squeezing out of water from within their

colloidal structure. As a result, this water, carrying sol

uble components of inneroellular origin, join extracellular

juices and are readily removed from the surface of the meat,

some by evaporation and some by dripping. High t©mp©ratures

also cause a greater quantity of fat to melt, thus increas

ing the cooking loss. Lowe (9) found by cooking eight pairs

of two-rib beef roasts that th© temperature affects the cook

ing loss. In cooking the roasts at an oven temperature of

125° G (2570 F) the total cooking loss was 9.1 per cent,

while cooking at an oven temperature of 200° G (392° F)

resulted in 18.6 per cent loss. Cover (12) foxind an oven

temperature of 125° G (2570 F) to be the most practical cook

ing temperature for her experiments. She also found that a

temperature of 80° G (176° P) produced a desirable product

and did not result in shrinkage in th© meat. Tnis was

offered as evidenc© that th© conversion of collagen had pro

gressed beyond the point where contraction could take place.

The United States Department of Agriculture (8) found

that cooking standing-rib roasts at an oven temperature of

-11-

125° C (2570 F) resulted in a total loss of 12.3 per cent,

while cooking at a t©mp©rature of 175° G (347° F) resulted

in a total loss of 18.7 per cent. It was also found that

cooking standing-rib roasts at 235© G (455© F) resulted in

27.1 per cent loss.

Justin, Rust, and Vail (19) recommend an oven tem

perature of 148.90 G (300° P) for the roasting of meat. They

claim, however, that the roasting of meat at this temperatur©

results in a less attractive decree of browning. Th© surface

browning of moat is due to the partial charring or breakdown

of both connective tissue and fat. Searing the meat before

roasting was or^lnally done because the protein was thought

to coagulate at th© cut ends of the muscle fibers sufficiently

to seal thorn, thereby holding the juices. Fitch and Francis

(20) found searing actually increases th© shrinkage in a

roast. Halliday and Nobel (21) say that a seared roast loses

a greater quantity of fat and moisture during cooking and

thereby shows greater shrinkage than does an unseared one.

In comparing moist versus dry heat, Clark and Van

Duyne (22) found that total cooking losses were increased by

th© use of a pressure sauce pan. Th© loss due to evaporation

was only 8.4 per cent when using a pressure saucepan as com

pared to 25.4 per cent when roasting in the oven. However,

th© total losses Incurred by the use of a pressure saucepan

were 40.9 per cent, compared to 31.7 per cent by roasting.

Similar results were reported by Cover, Dilsaver and Hayes

-12-

(23) who found that the total losses in cooking roasts in a

pressure saucepan were 40.7 per cent. A smaller loss of 34

per cent was reported by Tucker, Hinman, and Halliday (24).

Lowe (9) found that cooking with moisture in a closed con

tainer in an oven also increased the total losses.

In the past, it was believed that the metiiod of

defrosting frozen meat affected the total loss and juiciness

of the meat. Child (25) thawed roasts in the refrigerator

at a temperatur© of 36 to 38° F, at room temperatur©, and in

an oven at 300° F. Juiciness and drip were found to be un

affected by the method of thawing.

Lowe (9) states that in order to reduce the amount

of drip, meat should be cooked before becoming completely

thawed. Child (25) found the amount of drip was not de

creased by cooking meat in a partially frozen state.

Low© (9) furth©r states that the cooking tim© for

frozen meat should bo Increased two to four times, depending

on the degree of thawing. The findings contradicted those

of Vail, Jeffory, Forney, and Wiley (26) who report that

cooking time was increased only one and one-half times when

the meat was in a hard frozen state.

Flavor and aroma; Flavor and aroma are to be consid

ered in judging palatability. The flavor of raw meat resides

mostly in the juices. Crocker (27) states that meat appar

ently owes its flavor to the sweetness and saltiness of

actual blood and to a small extent to creatine and creatinine

-13-

whlch have very weak flavors. According to Crocker, when raw

meat is cold, it nas the weak aroma of blood. Tae taste is

also weak, sweetish, and salty, '/ hon meat was warned in a

100° G (2120 F) oven for twenty minutes, considerable aroma

appeared. The odor was alkaline and somewhat "ej^y" indicat

ing th© presence of sulfur compounds.

A study was made of the changes occurring in the

flavor of meat due to the length of boiling tiioo and to tiie

contribution made by bones, marrow and fat. The tests showed

that the flavor was mostly due to the aroma. Th© tast© was

sweet, salty, fatty, and somewhat "livery." Th© broth from

long-cook©d meat was sweet, salty, slightly astringent, and

gelatinous. Beof bones, marrow, and fat appeared to contri

bute almost no flavor, but added gelatin and fat which gave

body to th© preparations in which they were used.

It was the conclusions of Crocker (27) that cooked

boaf flavor is complicated chemically and consists more of

odor than of taste.

CHAPTER III

EXPiiRIMEi TAL PROCr DUKi:

Storage and preparation of rib cuts; The waolesale

rib cuts of beef were shipped in a refrigerated truck from

Port Worth to Lubbock, Texas. Each cut was divided at the

locker plant into one three-rib roast and one four-rib roast.

The roasts were weighed and the weights were recorded. The

three-rib roasts were wrapped in brown, waxed paper and Siiarp

frozen at -15° P. The four-rib roasts were sharp frozen, then

dipped in a liquid thermal plastic solution. They were again

placed in the "sharp-freeze" to solidify the "no-air-wrap"

plastic, '.ach roast was marked with the respective Lot

number and weight. The meat was stored at the locker plant

from May 13, 1950, to December 3, 1950, at -50 F,

Selection of ovens; The ovens to be used were selected

by testing each for uniformity of temperature by the use of an

iron-constantan thermocouple. Both gas and electric ovens

were tested by setting the oven control for 300O F and allow

ing the temperature to increase until the tnermostat acted.

This maximum temperature was measured and recorded. The teoi-

perature was allowed to decrease until the thermostat again

acted and this minimum temperature was measured and recorded.

This process was repeated until three maximum temperatures

-14-

-15-

and thr©© minimum t©mporaturos wore obtained. The ovens

oontrolled by thermostats which wore actuated by the small-

ost temperature difforonco wore chosen. Th© t©mp©ratura

difference for the chosen ovens was 290° to 310° P.

List of ©quipmont: The following ©quipm©nt was

placed tog©th©r in th© laboratory for th© convonionce of

th© writ«r and to save the time of hunting equipment when

th© ©xporim©nt8 were actually underway.

2 roast pans 2 meroury-filled meat thermometers range—140° to 190© P division—2° P

2 moroury-filled oven thermometers range—100° to 600° P division—IQO p

1 roll wax paper 1 sot of trip-balance scales score shoots

2 accurate ovens 7 pencils 1 box napkins 2 metal sk©wors 7 plates 7 knives 7 forks 2 sharp cutting knives 1 ruler 1 tnermometor range—0° to 100° F division—20 F

2 trial roasts

Trial roasts; Two trial roasts wore cooked accord

ing to the oontemplatod procedure in order that the techniques

and manipulations might bo perfected. The oooking of the

trial roasts afforded an opportunity to observe the internal

-16-

temperature rise of the roasts as the cooking progressed,

thereby indicating the nocossary fraqu©ncy of observation

during the cooking period. Furthermore, the practice of

removing the Logissimus Dorsi muscle from these roasts and

preparing it for judging aided in the uniformity of the

preparation of the test roasts for judging.

Method of testing: There are several types of

moohanioal testers described in the literature for the eval

uation of tenderness of moat. Deatherage and Reiman (28)

found that the results from mechanical tests were not re

producible and reliable because moat is a hotergenoous food

and tenderness values are dependent on many factors difficult

to control.

A method of testing organoloptically was devised

(so© appandix) and a chack-sheot method of scoring was used

in judging th© factors which influanco the palatability of

meat. The factors considered wor© thos© of tenderness.

Juiciness, flavor of fat, flavor of lean, and aroma.

A panel of seven reliable judges was chosen. Before

the tests began, the methods of sampling, judging, and

scoring were discussed with the judges as suggested by

Overman and Jerome (29).

Exp©rim©ntal roasts; Th© roasts wer© cook©d and

Judged in groups of two. The roasts wore grouped on a basis

of comparative weights and number of ribs, as shown below:

-17-

Group

I

II

III

Nos. Lot Nos.

I

V

II

III

IV

VI

kVoi nt

i our-rib

11.26

10.50

12.95

12.01

10.50

10.50

of Roasts

Tare0-rib

10.31

10.26

10.91

10.11

8.67

9.44

Before cooking, each roast was allowed to tnaw for

three hours at room temperature (75° F), and then placed in

a 40° F refrigerator for approximately thirteen nours to

complete the thawing. When an internal temperature of from

40° to 50° F had boon reached, the roasts wore weighed to

one one-hundredth of a pound and placed in weighed pans

labeled "A" and "B."

The approximate contor of the Longissimus Dorsi was

doterrainod by measuring each roast and trio bulb of a mercury-

filled thermometer was inserted to the ascertained center.

The roasts were then placed in ovens that had boon pre

heated to 300° x*' wnero they remained until they reached an

internal temperature of 170° F.

The weight of each roast, time of cooking, and wolgnt

-18-

of drippings were determined and recorded after the roasts

were removed from the ovens.

The Longissimus Dorsi, or eyo muscle, was removed

and sliced across the grain into one-fourth inch thick

slices, starting one-half inch from the ends of the exposed

muscle. Samples of both fat and loan wore arranged on a

plate that had previously been divided into two sections and

appropriately labeled. The samples for each judge had oc

cupied the same relative position in the two roasts. To

obtain the maximum values for palatability, the moat was

Judged while it was hot.

CHAPTER IV

EXPr^RIMENrAL RiiioULTo

Table I is the compilation of the data which were

obtained by cooking the four-rib roasts. Tae roast from

Lot II was the largest roast, wei hing 12.95 pounds. The

roasts from Lots IV, V, and VI were the smallest, weighing

10.50 pounds each.

The total internal temperature rise during cooking

was comparable for each roast, witn a variation of only

twelve degrees. The roast from Lot IV required the longest

cooking time per pound of meat, 33.3 minutes. Tne roast from

Lot I required the shortest cooking period, 29.1 minutes per

pound. It is observed that there is a maximum variation in

the cooking time of 4.2 minutes per pound between the roasts

requiring the longest and the snortest cooking period.

Tne data obtained from the cooking of the three-rib

roasts are compiled in Table II. The roast from Lot II was

the largest, weighing 10.91 pounds. The smallest roasts

were from Lots IV and VI, weighing 8.67 and 9.44 pounds,

respectively.

The total internal temperature rise for the six

three-rib roasts was comparable, with a variation of only

ten degrees. Tne roast from Lot IV required the longest

-19-

-20-

TABLE I

DATA SHEET FOR FOUR-RIB ROASTS

Lot Nos. I II III IV V VI

Internal tomporaturo op

Uncooked 50° 40° 44° 50° 52° 50°

Cooked 170° 170° 170° 170° 170° 170°

Tomporaturo rise

Uncooked weight in pounds

Cooked weight In pounds

Weight of drippings in pounds

Volatile loss in pounds

Total cooking losses

Total cooking time in hours

Minutes cooked per pound

120°

11.26

7.86

0.85

2.45

3.30

5.45

29.1

130°

12.95

9.83

0.32

2.30

3.12

6.30

29.3

126°

12.01

9.00

0.79

2.22

3.01

6.30

31.6

120°

10.50

7.76

0.78

1.96

2.74

5.83

33.3

118°

10.50

7.90

0.95

2.65

3.60

5.38

30.5

120°

10.50

d.03

0.60

1.87

2.47

5.50

31.4

-21-

TABLE II

DATA Sil.v i' FOd TiiaKi:,-HIB liOASTS


Internal temperature op

Uncooked 400 40O 400 500 400 50©

n looked 170O 1700 1700 1700 1700 170O

Temperature rise

Uncooked weight in pounds

Cooked weight in pounds

Weight of drippings in pounds

Volatile loss in pounds

Total cooking losses

Total cooking time in hours

i>linutos cooked per pound

1300

10.31

7.56

1.26

1.49

2.75

6.00

34.9

1300

10.91

8.46

0,91

1.54

2.45

6.66

36.6

130O

10.11

7.63

1.03

1.45

2.48

6.00

35.6

1200

8.67

7.34

0.93

1.35

2.33

5.75

39.8

1300

10.29

7.63

1.04

1.62

2.66

6.00

35.1

120O

9.44

7.12

1.06

1.26

2.32

5.83

37.6

-22-

oooking time per pound of moat, 39.8 minutes. The roast

from Lot I required 34.9 minutes per pound, the shortest

cooking period. It is observed that there is a m6ucimum

variation in the oooking time of 4.9 minutes per pound of

roast.

In comparing the data from Table I and Table II, it

is observed that the three-rib roasts, on an average, required

more minutes per pound of cooking time than did the four-rib

roasts. The three-rib roasts required 36.6 minutes per pound,

while the larger four-rib roasts wore cooked at an average of

30.8 minutes per pound.

Table III and Table IV show the percentage loss in

curred during the oooking of the four and the three-rib

roasts. It is observed that the four-rib roast from Lot V

had the greatest loss, 34.3 per cent, while the four-rib

roast from Lot VI had the least loss, 23.5 par cont. Th©

thr©e-rib roasts from Lots IV and V show th© gr©at©st total

loss, 26.9 p©r cent and 26.0 per cont, respectively. The

three-rib roast having the least loss, 22.4 per cent, is

from Lot II. It is found by averaging the losses incurred

during oooking that the loss due to drippings for the four-

rib roasts is only 7.0 per cont, compared to 10.6 per cent

for the three-rib roasts; however, the loss for the four-rib

roasts due to evaporation was 20.1 per cont, compared with

14.9 per cent for the three-rib roasts. This makes a total

-23-

TABLS III

JOOKING L0Son:3 INJURRliD DURING COOKIIJG TH3 ?OUR-RIB ROASTS


Total cooking loss in pounds 3.30 3.12 3.01 2.74 3.60 2.47

Per cent loss^

Per cont loss due to drippings

Per cont loss due to evaporation

29.3

7.55

21.3

24.5

6.33

17.8

25.0

6.58

18.5

26.1

7.43

13.7

34.3

9.05

25.2

23.5

5.71

17.8

^Per cont cooking loss is based on the uncooked weight of the four-rib roasts.

- 2 4 -

TABLE IV

COOKING L0S3:>S IIICURRED DURIilJ COOKING THE THREE-RIB ROASTS

Lot Nos . I I I I I I IV V VI

Total cooking loss in poxinds 2.75 2.45 2.48 2.33 2.66 2.32

Per cent loss*

Per cent loss duo to drippings

Per cent loss duo to evaporation

26.7

12.22

14.4

22.4

8.33

14.1

24.5

10.20

14.3

26.9

11.30

15.6

26.0

10.15

15.8

24.6

11.23

13.4

^Per cont cooking loss is based on the uncooked wei^at of tho throe-rib roasts.

-25-

loss for the four-rib roasts of 27.1 per cont and 25.5 per

cent for tho throe-rib roasts.

It was necessary to cut the seven-rib roasts into

throe and four-rib cuts due to the size of tho experimental

equipment. In order to obtain the complete data on th©

roasts from th© animals r©coiving th© various rations, Tabl©

V is a composite of the preceding tables. Tho total weight

of tho meat from Lot II was tho largest, 23.86 pounds, while

that of tho meat from Lot IV was the smallest, 19.17 pounds.

The roasts from Lots II and III show tho greatest internal

temperature rise, 130° F and 1280 F, rospoctivoly. The

roasts from Lot IV required tho longest cooking period per

pound, 36.3 minutes. There is a variation of 4.4 minutes

per pound between tho roasts requiring tho longest cooking

time and the roasts from Lot I which required the shortest

oooking time. The roasts from Lot V show tho greatest loss,

30.1 per cont, as compared with tho roasts from Lot VI which

show tho least loss, 24.0 per cent. It is evident that tho

loss due to evaporation accounts for two-thirds tho total

loss Incurred during tho cooking.

The length of tho cooking time, the size of tho

roast, and tho internal temperature rise have a marked

influence on the losses incurred during tho cooking of a

roast. To eliminate the extraneous variables so that the

losses might bo compared solely on the basis of the diet of

-2G-

TABLE V

aOMPILATIOII OF DATA ON THE

Lot Nos. I II III jv V VI

Combined weight 21.57 23.86 22.12 19.17 20.79 19.94

Average temperature rise op

Cooking losses in pounds

Per cent cooking loss

Per cent loss duo to drippings

Per cont loss due to evaporation

Total cooking time in minutes

i.linutes cooked per pound

125°

6.05

28.0

9.9

10.1

637

31.9

130O

5.57

23.3

7.4

15.9

778

32.6

1280

5.49

24.7

3.3

16.4

73o

33.4

120O

5.07

26.5

9.4

17.1

695

36.3

1240

6.26

30.1

9.6

20.5

683

32.9

1200

4.79

24.0

8.4

15.6

630

34.1

-27-

the animal, the pounds of total loss per pound of moat were

divided by the cooking time in minutes per poxind, thus elim

inating the size of the roast. This value was then divided

by the total internal temperature rise which eliminated the

variable internal temperature rise. To avoid using the very

small values obtained by those calculations, all the values

wore multiplied by 10,000. The results of these calculations

for the four-rib and the three-rib roasts are shown in Tables

VI and VII.

Table VIII shows the combined average loss of the

roasts compared to the ration of the animal. The table is

summarized in Pigiire 1. It is observed that the moat from

the animal in Lot II which received the roughage of cotton

seed hulls shows tho least loss. The meat from the animal

in Lot III which was fed 25 per cent cottonseed hulls and

75 per cent sumac silage shows the next lowest loss. The

roughage of 50 per cent cottonseed hulls and 50 per cent

sumac sorghum silage produces the greatest loss during the

oooking of tho meat.

The four-rib and the three-rib roasts were judged

separately on tho factors which influence palatability.

Bach of tho five factors, tenderness, juiciness, flavor of

lean, flavor of fat, and aroma, could receive a total score

of five with the exception of aroma which could receive a

total score of three from each judge. The maximum score for

-28-

TABLS VI

POUNDS OP COOKING LOSSES PER MINUTE OP COOKING TIMS, PER DEGREE INTERNAL TEMPERATURE RISE FOR THE POUR-RIB ROASTS

BOB


Cooking losses per pound of meat times 100 29.3 24.5 25.0 26.1 34.3 23.5

Minutes oooked per pound 29.1 29.3 31.6 33.3 30.5 31.4

Cooking losses per minute times 100 100.7 83.6 79.1 78.3 112.4 74.8

Degree temperature rise 120° 135° 131° 120° 118° 120°

Lbs. of loss

Min.*-OP i.T.R** #839 .620 .603 .652 .945 .623

•internal temperature rise.

-29-

TABLE VII

POUNDS OP COOKING L0SS: 3 P .d MINUTE OF GOOKIJJ TIME, P.iiH DiJGRI r] INTCaNAL TEMP. .UTUii; RIS.. FOA TdF. T.Li j: -aio R0A3T3


Cooking losses per pound of meat times 100 26.7 22.4 24.L 26.9 26.0 24.6

Minutes cooked per pound 34.9 36.6 35.6 39.3 35.1 37.6

Cooking losses per minute times 100 76.5 61.3 68.3 67.7 74.0 65.5

Degree tomporaturo rise 130° 130° 130° 120° 130° 120°

Lbs. of loss

Min. —^? I.T..i."- .588 .471 .529 .564 .569 .546

*Intornal temperature rise.

-30-

TABLE VIII

RELATIOii OF TdJ Aili:<!AL»S Fi-.ii^ TO THE COOKING LOSS

Lot I

Sumac Sorghum Silage

Lot II

Lbs. Loss Min.—OF I. T. R.

0.714

104

Cottonseed Hulls 0.545

Lot III

25 per cent Cottonseed Hulls 75 per cent Sumac Sorghum Silage 0.566

Lot IV


Lot V


Lot VI


— - r - p n—T ; ! ' ! ! I > ;_^ ;__ ' j ! 1 1 • ! ' ' ' • ' ' ' i i

1 ! 1 i l l t - i - ' - - r - --I f ' t ' M i ~ " 1 1 i M l 1 1 • ^--^^' 1 i 1

M i l "" " ••" ' M ' M ' ^ r ; 1 1

* i M^ - ^ 1 . 4.3 In 1 ' i J ! 4 1 l l : J L , .... -t-. . ! , . i :4 4 .-^-^- - . - . - | -.-.-| . - | - | - ^ - - _ _ . ^ - , - _ | - . , . ^ - , - ^ ^ - . . ^ - ^ t ;-t^

" " i " T" * * ' + ' t 1 ' 1 ' i i ' ' i i ' i i l l ' i * i j t

-4tMi-4-4-]'- :^ i -4| i -M-- .44H-4Tf ' • ' r 4 - ' ' • -^ .^-UM-I-M+-4441 • -4-.x..-4-..--. - | 4 t t - 4 4 J ^ • • • 4 - r - - . 4-1-^- - - ^ 4 4 - i - , , 4 - -1 , .., . .._44:-^.|_4-.-^.J 1 | . , _ . - ^ 4 4 r - — —t J—•— • : ' . . • i 1 ! i 1 1 , 1 . 1 1 I I ' 1 ' . , , , I 1 1

' ' ' ' 1 ' ! ' ' ' t + . - 4 — ) 1 — 1 — 1 1 1 — 1 — • — ^ . . , 1 1 f 1 4 ' ! '

- - 4 - - 4-- i . . . I . . . ,- 4-^.:..- - f - i . . 4-4:- i- 4-r|-4---^JM-i--4t-r- - 4 * 4 - - ^ - • - - ^ - ^ - - M - . - - . -j ^ ' J 1 1 1 ' ' 1 1 1 ' ' ' • 1 1 ' i 1 '

M 1 M , , ! 1 M I T " *—"—"'id', i i : 1 ' , • 1 1 1 ' 1 M 1 ^ ^ ^ ^ ' 3f 1 ; . ! • M '

-•-)- j 1 i 1 i ^ . 4 . . i » _ . » M M _ - i i » . _ - j M' i ' i M . -4—- - _44— 4 - - 4 - -i 4 4 . - ^ M - - 1 - - 4-1 1 • ! 1 i . 1 1 i 1-4--_j _ i ' M ' i I ' l l ! M l - I 4 - 111 . - i ^ r M 1 • • i "4" i 11

] 1 j i_ , , 4..... _ i _ .... , 1 , , -,-_(_ — p t T 1 1 - . — - - . - _— 4— —^ - _) - —1—J. ..-4 -^

--^----r - 4 ^ -^ , ., , , 5 4---iiLl.::. "•" ::iii±ii:i:"i:ii:ii"i-L q -444- ^ t""-4-i-iiiiiiiit Jimtii- , t 'a 1 - - - • •""""••. , i 1 , 4 , ,, 1 1 *• l i ^

^^4" " ^ [~ "T I j 4 1 _, ' ] 1 ' 1 __4_ 4 4_ 1 ' 4 4 I ' ' -4 4 1— j l j i 1

4 : - .- - .._ . 4 1 M ' ' Z - - I - -._4:4r- .__- _,,- 41-4 i t t ' " X t t "-414' ^x^^t 1414: s i - -t-

! 4 - 4 • . i4.4n4-7M -4- -- -j--i 4 - 44J 3 t i 1 . _ • _ _ . 1 1 1 1 . X

1 - - 1 - 1 4.:,...I . :. . „ . , ,4, ..\-\-- 4 ' ^

1 1 1 ' 1 M 3 1 ' 1 i H I 1 1 j

M P i ' PH (

. ' P ' L_l 1 • J 1 H

" j 1 " H W PM ' 1 T Y--{ S W i

jp [vj ' 1 m 1

' i ! W i i ^^ i"j

I j t " j 1 w I

|_ _! S "4" [— 1 1

i *" ' ! F 1 1 .. " i "' I p M

, 1 W 1 i ' H ' ' 1 ^ 1

. .- U ' 1 - L xl • • _. i 4 -.4_3 _ l !

J 4, ,4 — '

j — i i i : | : i i i i i i i i i i - i i i - -— -, ^ ^ HH-. |T \\\Y 1 ' j F4 1 M 1 . 1 • J ^_ . ( ^ i ; ; M

1 1 ; |_3 ' '

4 ' w ! 1 ' p i ' 1 ' ! i 4i3 i , 1 ! r i

J , . _ :. .L - _4. - - t ^4 i-4_;-4 - - 0 4 _ t - 4 - _ i - M 4 -^ — . — - — ^ - 4 - ' - ' — — - - . . 1 . 1 . f ^ 1 , , 1 J - ^ ^ . — ^

1 1 1 __!_ _|_ J_. -.-. -,—. . - - 4-4- -4- | -^_4 ^-.^ '. '. -.^ . '. '. \

4L "~ ' - ^ i-P X - ;+-"M "-^" -' . .! r l Tt4 fe 4 1 : : 44: t -4 ' • "~ T ^ - ^ 4 4 - | - p - ^ - - -f- j j ^ _ _ _ _4_,^4-}-^---- ; . • • i" 1 \ * 1 1 , , ! 1 1 1—( r — — M — ' — ! • • • • . i • 4 , i . . . I ,

44" i ^ 1 1 = i i P ' . 4 4 ! • • '" 1 , 1 1 i ] • • 1 • i - 1 M M • I 1 ]

[_ 1 |. 1 1 1 J L 4 I— ' • ' 1 ' ' M -L 1 1 • i i 1 1 I 1 i ^

M 1~ 4 4 - - - - • •- 1 M ! i ' M ' " '" ' - - r - - - j - -^ - -

X- -—- - a-s^'t}--bii^k'i.i<»{iiE').r .-nuiiiJ^iwt* -(K>Ji!?i?^ i 4*^4 ^ « • • • • ; . I . ^^ • ^.*.t&-f_t*l}f_»'* =*'*"*'''I'_1 "*' 'f *-- " T4 -xlt--LU-^ L : . . 4 M—r— - . - .«»ttf-L-^3:xc^i3ph-,iiX ^Liiifasii-ji i t- fJJ-rsCTi^94-'P^94: . . — . M : 4 "" *"-

4 ' ' 4 , 4 • , ' ' ' • i 1 ] t 1 M M T * • j - - • > - * * " - 1 - -•• -- ^ — ' — • ^ •—

— ! I , I i ' ' ' ' i 4 ^ " " \"* ^ * ""'' ^"^'"< '"" ^• T i ^ T : ^ . i * * " ^ -" ' '—•-"

-L 1 _114 XXJ ___. .. : . : , . .-^^l ^"

-32-

each factor would have been a score of five points from each

of the seven Judges or thirty-five points, with the exception

of aroma which would nave had a msixlmum score of twenty-one

points. The scores for tne four-rib roasts and the taroe-

rib roasts individually have little bearing on the actual

problem; therefore, the scores for the two j;roups of roasts

were combined, making a total of seventy points possible for

each of the factors except aroma and a possible score of

forty-two for aroma. It was obvious that tne data for aroma

would not be comparable with that for tho other factors. It

was decided therei'ore to multiply the total score for aroma

by or 1.667 in order to make those scores comparable.

Table IX shows the total points and the score for

the meat from eacn lot. It is observed that tae roasts from

Lot V received the highest score of 87.2 per cent for tender

ness, while the roasts from Lot III received the lowest score

of 64.3 per cent. The roasts from Lot II received the hign-

est score of 81.5 per cent for Juiciness, wnile the roasts

from Lot V and VI received the lowest score, 68.5 per cent.

The roasts from Lot IV received the highest score of 90 per

cent for flavor of lean, waile the roasts from Lot II received

the lowest score, 72.8 per cent. The highest score for tho

flavor of fat was 75.7 per cent for the roasts from Lots II

and VI. The lowest score of 65.7 per cont was given to tne

roasts from Lot I for tnis factor. The roasts from Lot VI

-33-

TABLii; IX

COMPILATION OP JUDJ43 SCORCS

Lot Uo3. I II III IV V VI

Tijii'lD )i'iM..;jSS Points: 48 54 45 58 61 58

Percentage Score: 68.5 77.2 64.3 83.0 87.2 33.0

JUICINESS Points: 50 57 49 52 48 48


FLAVOR OF LEAN Points: 59 51 54 63 57 59


FLAVOR OP PAT Points: 46 53 52 51 47 53

AROM --


Points:* 58 58 52 62 58 63


" Total points times 1.667

-34-

recoivod the highest score of 90 per cent for aroma, while

the roasts from Lot Til received t:ie lowest score of 74.3

per cent.

Since the factors which influence the palatability

have comparable scores in Table IX, it is possible to deter

mine the total score for the meat from each lot. Table X

shows the relation of the animal*s ration to palatability.

This table is suiTiraarized in Figure 2. ..hen all factors

which influence palatability are combined, the roasts from

the animals in Lot IV which were fed tae roujha^o of 75 per

cent cottonseed hulls and 25 per cent sumac sorf£-iu-j silage

received the highest score of 81.7 per cent. The roasts

from the animals in Lot III which were fed the roujuia ^ c ' '-•'-"•O"

containing 25 per cent cottonseed hulls and 75 per cent

sumac sorghum silajfc! received the lowest score of 72 per cent.

- 3 5 -

TABL3 X

xi4LATI0N OP Till:; A. IMAL'S FS 4D TO TiU PALATABILITY SC0:in:3

Percentage Score

Lot I

Sumac Sorghum Silage 74.6

Lot II


Lot III

25 por cent Cottonseed Hulls 75 per cent Sumac Sorghum Silage 72.0

Lot IV


Lot V

50 per cent : ottonsoed Hulls 50 per cent Sumac Sorghum Silage 77.5

Lot VI


— J

_

•

1

1

4 - ^ - - 4 ^ -

i i tr ± I 4 • " '•

M M ! 1 . t 1 . 1

+-4 4- | t :4 :_4: --1- ' IJ 4 Xu "^X'\—^"^ i"" i " ' '

-4! l + l l ' i -1 1 t 1 1

T -^-- - - -

1

'^ 3: " 1 ^ 1 ^

^ ^ T M ^ — -— [— -j-

1 1 r r t 1 .-.t • . . j j , ..

' "44444" ••" ' " I T44 441 4 i : _ . . _ f - 4 - . - .

p-j—

1 i

"""•'TH - • — 4- i— i 1 . f—r—

"^"^"tt: " ' - -T ' 4 4 -^^["""tL. ^ 4 4 4 4 4

1 1 4 4 ^

4 1 ; J'^c

(—^« .(3r— ~—1 M—M

4 1 4 ' ' M ' '

—. - .4-^-+--|-4 • - ; • • [4-4-441-4^-- - I - . -— - -.-I , . . . , . .,-j 4 - - - j - 4 - ^ — - | —

4 4 i 14 1 U ' ' ' i i 4 - u 4 -|--|-.-^^- 4 " • ^"4^11-"414 4^^n

1 j 1 ' ; i ' ' + 4 ' '

1 1 1 ' i i l l ' ' i ~ l ! " ' ' l 4 4-1-' 4 4 1 i ' ' 1 ' 4 1 4 i 1 44444 ' J 14 T

4 - 4 - - - 4 - f t - | - . --^-.-4-4--^-.-4 -

-4 T . . . , . . . . _ . T T T " ' • *•• " 1 " " i " " " " " ' " " " " • " " " " " " ' " " " • " M l M i l M - - - — -

' " " " " " • " " " " t - i — - 4 ^ - • ; — I — ' — t - -^-^

4 4 I I 1 i 4 ..- - + --4 4 4 - - -t 4- -

- - 4 4 - | - ^ - , - f - -1 4 ' 1 4- ' 4-4-1 4 i 1 [ J i 1 -L

4|-4-M - t - -M-^--^-. _ 1 1 , ! 1 , 1

"•"•—"+"•—4t—' 4 " " " M " 4 ' i . i . ^ " * — " - - 4 ——!—! f--\——4 \ ~ T

4 4 4 . 1 j

4 ' ' 1 4 j 1 1 i 4 , '

Z\Z '" "" Mii"^ M44"'""4""" ' "T ' " ' - t H - M | - w | - ^ - - 4 - • ^ H '

T t- 4 4 4 1 1 J _ _ _ L . _ > _ _

_j_ _, j ^ ,

1 4 M l ,. j , , 1 , 1

" i t - - - - - . - p - -|^ -^4 4 : 14 44

i -! -

1 1 !

x it 4; -_ I -1 1 ._^._ - ^ -

f M ' 1 1 1 1 I j ^

1 , M 1 ! ^T^

1 ' ' ' 1 I 1 ' 1 i l l

4 t

ti' ' ' '' ^':i .- L

i ! i i i 1 ' 1 4 - i _

4_ _ ^ 1 4 -4-4-

1 4 4 4 4 4 ' -f 1 1 1 .

4 i 1 , 1

_ . _ ... _ 1 . _L + 4 — t - -1 4 t— ( 1 ' '

1 1 --L 4- - i - - - - t - - . -4 .4 - - - , 1 1— - —^ 1 ' 1 ' i ' : 1

T+' 4 '' ' M 4 4 '-4-- '^--4 1 1 i n . 4 - . . 4 . — 1 — ^ i ---i-4-

1 4 K 4 1 M l " S- - - 4-4-44^44-4 I-'-.4-1 ' ; t ! 1 1 1 1 I 1 1

! 1

9,ijr^ 9 j r \ ] i ^ ' f i i i i i ^ 1 i_

.

4 —( 1 -1.4.

4 1 1 ! i "l-T^ - • - • • i l l 1 t M 1 M —r- - - |—f -— * t I 44

n1 ^ , ^i S.S: "4 44-4 j " ^ ^ 1 ! , 4 1 ! 4

' 4-44 ' -1 S-i rr- ,T^^ ^~^ - -- I 1 -r4 4 -1—n 4 " I !~f

1 1 j i i 1 '

4 _L 1 M M • -t --4 ' M 1 •

4— —4 1- - r - - t - 4 - -4 * ^ ; ^ 1 ' ' 4 > • 1 1 . ' [ j^

1 , 1 1 .

-4—rj-- 4 4 4 r"444]4 I i. L 1 1 i , _ ( . . . - - .

. ' 1 L r 1 : 1 . j ,

: i , i - . ' . i i i - i ! 4 1 ^ 4 ! 4 1 i io—-T ^ i I i 1 M I J I i M M 4 S

- - | - - 4 l - l - 4 - 4 - | - | — ^ ^ - j - -4 M 1 l' '

1 : 1 F^ 4 — 1 4— —It'.

1 I T I 1 ^ 1 t > HM

! j 1 ^ 1 1 1 * * ! I

" I l l l i l l l l l h M t^ ^ - f -1 > M ' »H 1

i i i i i i i i j r ! ' S3 1 1 1 E l i

1 1 ' ' 1 t ! , j

Oi p 1 ^ Ipl 1

' '"' ' ] ' — Q1 I I I ! m i ^ • • 1 n 1 <lh < 1 M H 0; w 1 1 1 1 i 1 r, rnr

1 ! M t i l QQ

! 4 4 Oj 1 1 ! M l j ^ ' i

i ' • 1 1 1 1 4 j

•G— S 1 ' ~i ^ 1 1

-E Ifi 1 " ^ n 1

fin 1 W 34 1 T i i

l _ 1 A

j i i i i i i : ±:—. :^._ 4 1 j . <i-) "•" ' ' " " ' - 1 1 ! 1

T^ , 1 r 1 0 1

! i f ^ I •

! 1 1 ! ig 1 1 ^ 1 .1 1 1 '' ! i • ! 1

4^4--r-4 44t.4t-i4t4: -1-4 - h M ' 1 I ' ' M 4 " ' t-—-t-4-T4—'^^

f^4-44^-444- t - f t f - t M ; .U. L 1 1 4 ' ' *

4 ^ M" '" 1 -^

_ i - . __

! j _ 1

' .1—1-- ' I 1 1 4 1 1 4

1 ! - ; 1 1 M j 4

. . . , .

- U -—4—t—

— i — 1 —

, i 1 — f - •

- I . , •

1

^ _^

1 1 I— 1

1 1

I

: 1

4 ! 1 i 1 4 1

4 ( 1

1 1

^ r ; 1 , 1 ' 1 1 i

1 1 i ! 1 , 1

1

- i - . ^ -1

^ 4 ^ 1 j

: f 1 1

1 ! ' 1 f

, . 1 i

1 i

- 4 - ^

1

r—

"i -H

http://-i----t--.-4.4

/-IT HAPTER V

DISCUSSION OF EXPSHIiilfiNTAL RESULTS

Tho data from Table I and Table II indicate that the

four-rib roasts required a shorter cooking time por pound

than did the three-rib roasts. The difference in cooking

time can be attributed to two causes. Bones have been found

to decrease the cooking time for meat by acting as heat

conductors; therefore, the more bone in a given piece of

meat, the less time required for cooking. Lowe (9) states

that a larger piece of meat requires a shorter cooking time

per pound than a smaller piece of meat.

Justin, Rust, and Vail (19) found tnat the smaller a

piece of meat, the greater the loss incurred during cooking.

The findings of this research do not substantuate this state

ment, as the heavier four-rib roasts lost more during cook

ing than the lighter three-rib roasts. This difference in

loss might be attributed to the two types of wrapping on tho

roasts during storage; however, no definite conclusions can

be drawn regarding the advantages of the paper wrap on the

throe-rib roasts or the disadvantages of the thermal plastic

wrap on the four-rib roasts. It was not possible to find

any comparison of the two wraps in the available literature;

therefore, the cause of the variation in the cooking losses

-37-

-38-

for the two groups can not at the present time be ascertained,

and more research would be needed before any definite state

ment could be made.

Investigators (9), (12), and (18) have suggested that

the percentage of loss during the cooking of meat increases

as the internal temperature of a roast increases. All the

roasts used in this research were cooked to an internal tem

perature of 170° P. Due to this high internal temperature

the loss during the cooking was excessive, ranging from 30.1

per cent for the roasts from Lot V to 23.3 per cent for the

roasts from Lot II (page 26). The loss is composed of the

drippings and tho evaporation of which the loss due to

evaporation constitutes approximately two-thirds.

Robinson (1) compared Lots I and II from the stand

point of the two different roughages, cottonseed hulls and

sumac sorghum silage. Lots II and VI were compared as full

and deferred feeding of grain with different levels of cotton

seed meal and with the same type of feed as roughage. The

other three lots received both sumac sorghum silage and

cottonseed hulls in varying levels as the roughage portions

of the ration. Lot III received 25 per cent cottonseed hulls

and 75 per cent silage; Lot IV, 75 per cent cottonseed hulls

and 25 per cent silage; and Lot V, 50 per cent cottonseed

hulls and 50 per cent silage*

By comparing the data from Tables V, VII, and X on

the same basis as Robinson, one can determine the influence

-39-

of the ration of tho animal on the meat. The meat from Lot I

shows greater cooking losses, 28.0 per cent, than tae meat

from Lot II, 23.3 per cent. The meat from Lot VI shows jreater

cooking losses, 24.0 per cent, tnan the meat from Lot II waich

lost 23.3 per cent. The cooking losses produced in the meat

by the varying levels of roughages in the diets of tne animals

do not show a consistent loss for any of the various roughage

levels. The meat from Lot V shows the greatest cooking losses

of 30.1 per cent, while the meat from Lot II shows the least

losses of 23.3 per cent.

The palatability score for the meat from Lot II is

higher than the score for the meat from Lot I. The meat

from Lot VI received a higher score, 80.3 per cent, on pal

atability than the meat from Lot II which received the score

of 78.0 per cent. The palatability scores for the meat from

the animals in the lots receiving various levels of the dif

ferent roughages do not show consistent scoring for any of

the various roughage levels. The meat from Lot VI received

the highest palatability score of 81.7 per cent while the

meat from Lot III received the lowest score of 72.0 per cent.

The comparison of these data indicate that the ro\igh-

age of cottonseed hulls in the ration of tho animals produced

a meat which scored higher on palatability and had less cook

ing loss than the meat from the animals which were fed the

roughage of sumac sorghum silage.

CHAPTER VI

!ONCLUSIONS

In drawing conclusions from this investigation, it

should be kept in mind that the variation of the tests for

the roasts could be attributed to the inherent individual

differences in the animals rather than tne influence of tho

roughage.

It was concluded:

1. The meat from the animal which received cotton

seed hulls as the only rougnage tested higher on

palatability and had less losses during cooking

than the meat from the animal which received

sumac sorghum silage as the only roughage.

2. The cooking losses and the palatability scores

for the animals which received full deferred

feedings were comparable, and one type of feed

ing showed very little advantage over the other

type.

3. The volatile losses of the standing-rib roasts

used in this research constitute approximately

two-thirds of the total loss.

4. Tho larger four-rib roasts required less cooking

time per pound than the lighter three-rib roasts.

-40-

-41-

5. The meat from the animals used in this experiment

was high in quality and received relatively high

scores when judged organoloptically.

4

LIST OF Ri:;FERENCES

1. Robinson, J. L., "Feeding Cottonseed Hulls and Sumac Silage in Varying Levels for Fattening Yearling Steers." Unpublished Thesis, Library, Texas Technological College, Lubbock, Texas, 1950.

2. Cambell, C. A., iilllis, N, H., and Madison, L. L., Vitamin A- activity of lean meat and fat from cattle fed various levels of carotene. Food Research 8; 496-501. 1943.

3. Black, W. H., Warner, K. F., and Wilson, C. V., Beef production and quality as affected by grade of steer and feeding grain supplement on grass. U. S. D. A., Technical Bulletin 217; 1-32. 1931.

4. Bull, S., Snapp, R. R., and Rusk, H. P., Effect of pasture on grade of beef. Illinois Agriculture Experimental Station, Bulletin 475; 1-11. 1941.

5. Hall, J. L., Latchar, C. i:., and iviackintosh, D. L., Quality of beef. Part IV. Cnaracteristics of dark-cutting beef. Kansas Agriculture Experimental Station, Technical Bulletin 58; 1-57. I'^W.

6. Wanders took, J. J. and i iller, J. I., Quality and palatability of beef as affected by metnod of feeding and carcass grade. Food Research 13; 291-303. 1948.

7. Hankins, 0. C. and Foster, M. T., Approximate composition of the primary outs from steer carcasses of different grades. U. S. D. A., iiiimeographed Report. 1949.

8. Wilson and Company, Yields from different grades and weights of steer carcasses. Wilson and Company, Agricultural Relations Division. Cnicat o: Ails on and Company, Inc.

9. Lowe, Belle. Experimental Cookery. New York: John Wiley and Sons, Inc. 1949.

-42-

-43-

10. Ramsbottom, J. M. and Strandlne, >:. J., Comparative tenderness and identification of muscles in wholesale beef cuts. Food Research 13; 315-330. 1948.

11. Paul, Pauline, Lowe, Belle, and Buford, R., Changes in the histological structure and palatability of beef during storage. Food Research 9; 221-233. 1944.

12. Cover, Sylvia, Effect of extremely low rates of heat penetration on tenderness of beef. Food Research 8; 388-395. 1943.

13. Satorius, M. J. and Child, A. M., Effect of coagulation on press fluid, shear force, muscle cell diameter and composition of beef muscle. Food Research 3; 619-626. 1938.

14. Cover, Sylvia, Sffect of metal skewers on cooking time and tenderness of beef. Food Research 6; 233-239. 1941.

15. Deatherage, F. H]. and Harsham, A. Relation of tenderness of beef to aging time at 33-35° F. Food Research 12; 164-171. 1947.

16. Criswold, R. M. and Warton, ii. A., Effect of storage conditions on palatability of beef. Food Research 6; 517-528. 1941.

17. Mitchell, H. H., Hamilton, T. S., and Haines, W. T., Some factors affecting the connective tissue content of beef muscle. Journal of Nutrition 1; 165-178• 19S3.

18. United States Department of Agriculture, Shrinkage and cooking time of rib roasts of beef of different grades as influenced by style cutting and method of roasting. U.S. D. A., Technical Bulletin, No. 676; 1-23. 1939.

19. Justin, M. M., Rust, L. 0., and Vail, J. E., Foods. New York: Houghton Mifflin Company. 194 1

20. Fitch, N. K. and Francis, 3. A., Foods and Principles of Cookery. New York: Prentice Hall, Inc. 1947.

21. Halliday, :. G. and Nobel, I., Hows and Whys of Cooking. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1947.

-44-

22. Clark, R. K. and Van Duyne, F. 0., Cooking losses, tenderness, palatability and thiamin and riboflavin content of beef as affected by roasting, pressure saucepan cooking and broiling. Food Research 14; 221-230. 1949.

23. Cover, S., Dilsaver, B. M., and Hayes, R. M., Rentention of B vitamins in beef and lamb after stowing. I. Experiment design and standardized cooking procedure. Journal American Dietetic Association 23; 501-504. IMTl

24. Tucker, R. E., Hinman, W. F., and Halliday, bl. J., The retention of thiamin and riboflavin in beef cuts during braising, frying and broiling. Journal American Dietetic Association 22; 877--j81. 1946.

25. Child, A. M., Thawing and cooking frozen roasts. Minnesota Agricultiiral Experimental Station; Special Sulletln 1S9; 1-6. 193S.

26. Vail, a. h;., Jeffory, M., Forney, H., and Wiley, C , affect of method of thawing upon losses, snear, and press fluid of frozen beef steaks and pork roasts. Food Research 8; 337-343. 1943.

27. Crocker, E. C , Flavor of meat. Food Research 13; 179-183. 1948.

28. Deatherage, F. E., and Reiman, W., Measurement of beef tenderness and tenderization of beef by tenderay process. Food Research 11; 525-534. 1946.

29. Overman, Andrea and Jerome, C. R. Li., Dependability of food judges as indicated by an analysis of scores of a food-tasting panel. Food Research 13; 441-450. 1948.

30. Roessler, E. B., Warren, J., and Cuymon, J. F., Significance in triangular taste tests. Food Research 13; 503-506. 1948.

31. United States Department of Agriculture and State A ri-cultural Experiment Stations., Methods of cooking and testing meat for palatability. U. S. D. A., (Supplement to National Project Co-operation ii at Investigation.) 1943.

A P P E N D I X

- 4 6 -

JUDCIrlS Sil44T FOR PALATABILITY

J u d g e D a t e

R o a s t

01

^ 0 0 ca '

CD 0

Of)

cin<

Ju

l

CJ

<D

0

Ivor

ri

of Uk

0

ivo

r

iH

Aroma

5 .

4 .

3 .

2 .

1 .

5 .

4 .

3 .

2 .

1 .

5 .

4 .

3 .

2 .

1 .

5 .

4 .

3 .

2 .

1 .

•

* 3 .

Very tender

Tender

Neutra l

Tou,^h

Very tough

Very j u i c y

J u i c y

Neutra l

Dry

Verj dry

Very d e s i r a b l e

D e s i r a b l e

I^eutral

Undes i rab le

Very u n d e s i r a b l e

Very d e s i r a b l e

D e s i r a b l e

Neutra l

Undes irab le

Very u n d e s i r a b l e

Very d e s i r a b l e 2 .

'

A B

1 1 1

D e s i r a b l e 1 . Undes irab le

. 40>>

:CWN0L0GI4Ai C0LL£6£

. ILXAS

by Ruby Cannon Martin, B. S. Approved

Documents

Transcript of by Ruby Cannon Martin, B. S. Approved