Utah State UniversityDigitalCommons@USU

All Graduate Theses and Dissertations Graduate Studies

5-1963

Influence of Temperature and Rate of HeatPenetration on Some Factors in Charcoal BroiledPorterhouse Steak and Ground BeefGeraldine IrvineUtah State University

Follow this and additional works at: https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd

Part of the Food Science Commons, and the Nutrition Commons

This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the GraduateStudies at DigitalCommons@USU. It has been accepted for inclusion in AllGraduate Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator ofDigitalCommons@USU. For more information, please contactdylan.burns@usu.edu.

Recommended CitationIrvine, Geraldine, "Influence of Temperature and Rate of Heat Penetration on Some Factors in Charcoal Broiled Porterhouse Steakand Ground Beef " (1963). All Graduate Theses and Dissertations. 5131.https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/5131

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

The author is indebted to many people who have in one way or another

assisted in this study. Special acknowledgment goes to Dr. Margaret B.

Merkley for help in initiating the problem, for continual counsel , criticism,

and encouragement throughout the study; to Dr . Ethelwyn B. Wilcox for her

thoughtfulness, suggestions , and help during the study; to Taylor Instrument

Company for use of their equipment; and to Dr . Thomas H. Bahler for

constructive criticism of this thesis. She a lso wishes to acknowledge the

help of Dr. Rex L . Hurst with the statistical analyses and to Bernice Nelson

for her help throughout the study .

Geraldine Irvine

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION .

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Protein . Thiamine Weight Loss , Moisture Retention, Press Fluid Tenderness Flavor

METHOD OF PROCEDURE

General Design of the Experiment Preparation of Meat

Porterhouse steak Ground beef

Cooking Method and Equipment Chemical Tests

Soluble Protein Thiamine

Physical Tests

Moisture Weight loss Press fluid Tenderness Flavor

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Cooking Time, Temperature, and Degree of Doneness Protein . Thiamine

Page

3

3 5 9

12 16

19

19 20

20 20

21 22

22 23

23

23 23 23 23 24

25

25 31 36

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Weight Loss, Moisture , Press Fluid Tenderness Flavor Regression Analyses

SUMMARY

LITERATURE CITED

APPENDIX

Hedonic Scale

Page

45 49 50 52

53

55

62

69

LIST OF TABLES

Table

1. Cooking temperature as related to degree of doneness and cooking time .

2. Percentage of thiamine and moisture r etention

3. Percentage of thiamine retention per minute

4. Percentage of thiamine loss per minute

5. Weight loss , moisture retention , and press fluid

6. Flavor values

7 o R2 values

8 . Influence of cooking temperature and time on weight loss , press fluid , and shear force in meats cooked rare

9. Influence of cooking temperature and time on weight loss , press fluid, and shear force in meats cooked medium done

10o Influence of cooking temperature and time on weight loss ,

Page

26

37

39

44

46

51

52

63

64

press fluid, and shear force in meats cooked well done 65

11. Influence of cooking temperature and time on soluble protein, thiamine, and moisture in meats cooked rare 0 66

12 o Influence of cooking temperature and time on soluble protein, thiamine , and moisture in meats cooked medium done 0 67

13o Influence of cooking temperature and time on soluble protein , thiamine , and moisture in meats cooked well done 68

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure

1. Rate of heat penetration in Porterhous e steak and ground beef

2. Protein retention as related to time, cooking temperature, and degree of doneness

3. Protein retention as related to degree of doneness and cooking temperature .

4. Thiamine retention as related to time, cooking temperature, and degree of doneness

5. Moisture retention as related to time, cooking temperature, and degree of doneness

Page

27

32

35

40

42

INTRODUCTION

Charcoal broiling is becoming an increasingly popular method for

cooking meat. Little scientific work has been done in this area. Information

presently available on charcoal broiling consists of broad generalizations

which have developed from trial and error testing. With the current interest

in charcoal broiling , there is a need for more factual, scientific information

as to the proper procedure .

Cooking method affects palatability and nutritive value of meat.

Chemical and physical changes occur during the cooking process and the

reactions which take place are not fully known or understood. Each cooking

method has a specific effect upon meat due to the rate of heat penetration

and the reactions which take place during the cooking period.

Broiling usually takes place at high temperature, making this method

of cooking meat contrary to recommendations . Generally broiling is done

with the thermostat set at 500 F . The heating element is constantly energized

when turned on. Attempts are made to adjust to the desired temperature by

varying the distance from the heat source . Cover et al. (1957) showed actual

surface temperature of the broiler often fluctuated from the desired tempera­

ture. Preliminary testing in our laboratory showed that it was impossible to

regulate heat at a constant temperature with an electric broiler .

2

In the past broiling studies were not possible since there was no device

to determine the temperature at the surface of the grill. Taylor Instrument

Company, Rochester, New York, developed a coil type thermometer which

records accurately the temperature at the grill's surface . Also they con­

structed an Electronic Universal nine-poi nt strip chart recorder which made

it practicable to record exact internal temperature and surface temperatur es

during the broiling process. These two instruments made it feasible to deter­

mine the effect of different temperatur es on meat under constant conditions.

Charcoal was chosen as the heat source in this study, since through

manipulation of the grill and the coals it was possible to control the heat at a

given temperature.

This was an exploratory study to investigate the influence of cooking

temperature, degree of doneness, a nd rate of heat penetration upon soluble

protein, thiamine, weight loss , moisture , press fluid , tenderness , and

flavor of charcoal broiled Porterhous e steak and ground beef.

3

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

The effect of heat upon the nutritive value of animal protein is not

clearly understood. It is known that heat is one denaturing agent for protein

that involves a change in the physical structure. Various degrees of denatur­

ation determine the extent to which the structures of the protein are modified.

Changes in the biological value of the proteins of beef due to cooking

were reported by Morgan and Kern (1934) . They found that the boiled a nd

autoclaved beef lost 8 to 17 percent of the growth-promoting value for rats,

and 6 to 30 percent of its nitrogen valu e . The decreases were gradual and

proportional to the time and the temperature of heating. Seegers and Mattill

(1935) confirmed the experime nts by Morgan and Kern in experiments on beef

liver, heart, kidney and round with dry-heat and hot alcohol extractions.

They considered the change caused decreased digestibility.

Rice a nd Beuk (1953) reported that heat altered protein structures.

Heat improved the nutritive value of some protein foods and damaged others .

Conditions of heating were important and the extent of destruction of protein

depended upon the intensity and duration of the heat treatment.

Melnick and Oser (1949) suggested that the total availability of protein

and the rate of availability were affected by heat treatment and were impor­

tant factors in the nutritive value of protein.

4

Krehl and Barboriak (1960) suggested that since excessive heat changed

the structur e of protein that some of th e amino acids became bound by a

linkage which was resistant to enzymatic actions . The amino acids were not

actually destroyed but enzymatic r elease was retarded. Essential amino

acids n eed to be liberated from protein at approximately the same time for

effective incorporation into metabolic pathways.

Bramblett et al. (1959) cooking paired cu ts at 63 C and 68 C to the

same internal temperature found that the beef cooked at 63 C had a lower

protein content, indicating that both time and temperature affected the rate

of destruction of protein .

Warner and Levy (1958) in their exper iments on heat denaturation of

bovine plasma albumin found that the rate of denaturation decreased with time.

Neurath et al. (1944) sugges ted that denaturation of protein occurs at

any temperature, and the rate incr eased as the temperature increased. Rate

was direc tly proportional to the concentration and the rate of thermal dena­

turation was dependent upon temperature. Levy and Warner (1954) gave

additional ev idenc e that denaturation of a protein solution was related to

temperature .

Experiments by Bautista et al. (1961) on beef slices heated to internal

temperatures of 130 , 150 , and 195 F showed that partial denaturation of the

protein a pparently occurred as the temperature increased and the initial

values of amino nitrogen , total soluble nitrogen, and trichloroacetic acid­

soluble nitrogen were decreased.

5

Studies by Griswold (1951) and Schroeder et al. (1961) suggested that

ordinary cooking methods had litlle effect upon the amino acid composition of

meat and the nutritional value of the protein. The biological value of the

protein may be slightly decreased or it may be improved.

Mitchell et al. (1949) and Toepher e t al. (1955) found little injury

occurred to beef protein. Mitchell et al. roasted beef for 5 hours in an oven

at 30,0 F to an internal temperature of 160 F with no appreciable injury to

the beef protein . Toepher et al. (1955) found that over 95 percent of the

protein was retained during dry heat methods of cooking.

Ginger et al. (1954) noticed a 4 to 30 fold decrease in soluble prote in

nitrogen of steaks broiled at 400 F to an internal temperature of 150 F .

Experiments by Paul et al. (195 0) on th e effect of boning on cooking

losses, found that boning seemed to make little difference in the retention of

nitrogen during cooking by dry heat.

Animal protein seemed to be affected by the heating, the temperature,

and time . The physical change in the protein may influence the availability

of amino acids to the body .

Thiamine

Since thiamine is water soluble a nd h eat labile the proportion retained

in cooked meat will depend upon the conditions of cooking. Factors that

affect the retention of thiamine under ordinary cooking methods used in the

home are cooking time, temperature, size and shape of the cut, composition ,

and cooking method.

6

National Live Stock and Meat Board (1950) and Morgan (1960) suggested

that the method of cooking meat affected thiamine loss . National Live Stock

and Meat Board reported that the retention of thiamine varied with the cook­

ing methods . Thiamine had a retention of 90 percent for frying, 80 percent

in broiling, 70 percent in roasting, 65 percent in braising, and 50 percent in

stewing. Morgan (1960) concluded that since thiamine is unstable in all heat­

ing processes, the method of cooking affects thiamine retention and gives

the following values : broiling 60 to 86 percent, frying 50 to 89 percent,

roasting 40 to 70 percent, boiling and braising 26 to 50 percent, canning

23 to 44 percent.

Cover and Smith (1956) cooking beef by broiling, roasting, and brais­

ing found a higher percentage of thiamine retention for broiled beef. The

lowest thiamine retention value was obtained for the braised beef. They

concluded that the higher internal temperature of the braised beef caused

greater destruction of thiamine and the shorter cooking period in the broiled

beef was the influencing factor for less destruction of thiamine.

Cover and Smith (1956) found that thiamine was better retained in

broiled than in braised beef steaks . There was some evidence that thiamine

retention was related to the thickness of steaks and to moisture loss . It was

noticed that as the steaks were turned during broiling the internal tempera­

ture dropped, the new surface lost moisture rapidly, the evaporation had a

cooling effect on both the surface of the steak and the internal temperature,

enough to prevent excessive destruction of thiamine as long as the surface

remained moist. Thicker steaks allowed for greater moisture loss by

maintaining the moist surface of the steak for a longer period of time than

for the thinner steaks . Dawson et a!. (1959) supported these findings in dry

and moist heat methods of cooking different grades of beef. They showed that

broiled beef had higher thiamine retention . Average retention of thiamine

tended to be somewhat better for the thicker cuts .

Dawson et a!. (1959) further reported that low-grade was as high in

thiamine as high-grade beef, but retention during cooking was somewhat

higher for thiamine in the higher grades . This was believed to be due to the

heavier fat covering in the higher grade which protected the lean and de­

creased the solubility losses. However, information on the content of thia­

mine in several cuts of cooked meat provided by Leverton and Odell (1958)

indicated that the thiamine content was greater in lean portions than marbled

portions . Calculations based on the ratios of vitamin content to protein con­

tent gave good correlations for thiamine in most of the lean and lean plus

marble cooked meat cuts studied, suggesting that thiamine content of meat

was related to the protein content. Therefore , when the proportion of fat in

the cut was high, as in the higher market-grade meat, the percentage of pro­

tein as well as of thiamine in raw meat purchased was correspondingly

reduced.

Mitchell eta!. (1949) correlating protein changes with thiamine values

in roast beef, found that thiamine was destroyed by heat but the correlation

with protein changes was low .

Cover eta!. (1949) reported beef roast cooked at 150 C (302 F) to an

internal temperature of 80 C (176 F) retained significantly more thiamine

than thos e r oas ted at 205 C (450 F) and cooked to an internal temperature of

98 C (209 F) . At the lower temperatur e only 67 percent of the thiamine was

retained, as compared to 47 percent at th e higher temperature .

8

Total thiamine retention was dependent on the time of cooking as demon­

strated by Cover et al. (1944) and Tucker et al. (1946) . Broiling experi­

ments by Tucker et a!. showed that broiled steaks submitted to high cooking

tempe ratures for a short time had higher thiamine retention than did oven

roasts at a lower cooking temperature but a much longer time. Thiamine

retention values were 84 percent for the rare-medium steaks and 77 percent

for the medium well-done steaks , indicating that total thiamine r etention

depended on the time of the cooking . Experiments by Cover eta!. (1944) on

roast beef at an oven temperature of 150 C cooked to an internal temperature

of 60 C for rare cuts and 80 C for well-done cuts noted that there was lower

thiamine retention in the well-done rib roasts than the rare.

That thermal destruction of thiamine in meat is affected by time and

temperature has been demonstrated by Mayfield and Hedrick (1949) , Farrer

(1955), Cover and Smith (1956) , Noble and Gomez (1960), and Lushbough

et al. (1962) . In experiments by Mayfield and Hedrick (1949) , standing rib

cuts were roasted to an internal temperature of 176 F at an oven temper ature

of 300 F and 500 F . Results showed that roasts cooked for a longer time at

the lower oven temperature retained m ore thiamine than those cooked at a

higher oven temperature for a shorter time. Noble and Gomez (1960) roasted

paired cuts at 149 C and 177 C to the s ame internal temperature . The longer

heating period did not seem to affect the thiamine retention. Lushbough

9

et al. (1962) studied the effect of different oven temperatures and heat treat­

ments on the percentage of retention of thiamine in beef round. Results of

this study showed that oven temperatures of 93 C and 149 C gave similar

values for thiamine retention. At an oven temperature of 204 C, thiamine

retention decreased significantly even though the ultimate internal tempera­

ture of the meat was the same. The data demonstrated that thiamine de­

struction continued throughout the heat processing of the meat. The rate and

extent of thiamine destruction were related both to the time and temperature

of cooking. Thus, if the maximum amount of thiamine is to be retained,

cooking or processing should involv e the use of the lowest temperatures and

shortest times.

Thomas and Bernadine (1959) reported for oven roasting 84 percent of

the thiamine was retained in the beef roasts cooked at a low oven temperature

of 300 F to an internal temperature of 158 F.

Weight Loss, Moisture Retention , Press Fluid

Moisture is an important characteristic of meat. This capacity to

retain moisture directly affects the cooking process . Moisture has been

shown to be related to the protein and fat content. Muscle proteins are re­

sponsible for the binding of water . About 34 percent of the muscle proteins

are water-soluble and the remaining proteins represent the structural sub­

stance (Hamm, 1960) . Wanderstock and Miller (1948) and Leverton and

Odell (1958) found that with higher protein there was less fat and more

moisture. Swift and Berman (1959) found increasing water retention of beef

10

muscle related to protein was accompanied by increasing fat content.

Hamm and Deatherage (1960) demonstrated that heating beef from 20 to

30 C gave no marked change in muscle proteins and no significant change in

hydration. Between 30 and 40 C there occurred mild denaturation resulting

in an unfolding of protein chains and the formation of new salt and/or hydro­

gen bonds which affected the hydration capacity. Results of Cover et al.

(1949), Wierbicki and Deatherage (1958), and Bramblett et al. (19 59) demon­

strated that water holding capacity of meat decreased with increasing tem­

perature. Bramblett et al. (1959) cooked m eat at 63 C and 68 C and found

higher moisture retention and press fluid value at the lower temperature.

Most of the weight loss was due to i:lecreased moisture. Cover et al. (1 949)

roasting beef at 150 C (302 F) to an internal temperature of 80 C (176 F ) and

meat roasted at 205 C (450 F) to an internal temperature of 98 C (209 F)

found greater weight losses at th e higher temperature .

Paul and Bratzler (1955a) demonstrated one of the major factors affect­

ing weight loss was the time required to broil steaks . Results by Cover

(1943) indicate that processing time has an influence upon moisture retention.

Roasts cooked at 80 C and 125 C to the same internal temperature retained

approximately the same amount of moisture although there were differences

in cooking time.

Aldrich and Lowe (1954), Pau l and Bratzler (1955b), Cover et al. (1957),

Dawson (1959), Dawson et al. (1959), Lushbough and Schweigert (1960) ,

Visser et al. (1960) , Cole et al. (1960) , Asselberg and Whitaker (1961), and

Cover et al. (1962b) found that as the interna l temperature of the meat

11

increased, average cooking time increased and was accompanied by in­

creased weight loss and decrease of press fluid and moisture . Heat dehy­

dration resulting in greater weight loss , lower press fluid values, and less

moisture retention was related to cooking time and temperature .

Other factors also seem to influ ence weight loss, moisture retention,

and press fluid values . Cole et al. (1960) found that in broiled ground beef

weight loss was greater in the fa tter samples, but evaporation losses de­

creased with increased fat. Ramsbottom et al. (1945) , Wanderstock a nd

Miller (1948), a nd Gaddis et al. (19 50) found the more finished carcass had

less press fluid . Aldrich and Lowe (1954), Hood (1960), and Porter et a l.

(1962) found no significant differe nces in weight losses for different grades .

Aldrich and Lowe (1954) showed that press fluid in cooked meat was higher

in Choice than Good Grade .

Studies by Paul et al. (1950) indicated cuts without bone took consider­

ably longer to cook than cuts with bone . Weight losses for boneless cuts

were higher than those with bone .

An ext ensive study by Leverton and Odell (1958) on the nutritive valu e

of cooked meat showed evaporation losses for broiled ground beef ranged

from a low of 18 . 3 percent to a high of 36.2 percent, with a mean va lue of

25. 0 percent. Evaporation losses for broiled Porterhouse steak ranged from

9 . 1 percent to 22 . 8 percent with a mean value of 15 . 1 percent.

Loos ening the protein structure had an effect on the water holding

capacity . Hamm (1960) suggests that grinding increases the meat hydration

12

because more polar groups of the proteins become available for the binding

of the water dipolar molecules .

Many factors (cooking time, temperature, composition of the meat,

degree of doneness, and their interrelationships) influence the weight loss,

moisture retention, a nd press fluid values for cooked beef.

Tenderness

Tenderness is directly related to consumer acceptance of beef. Factors

which influ ence the tenderness of beef include the cut of beef , cooking method,

time, temperature, degree of doneness, hydration, fat, changes in the pro­

tein structure, and the amount and kind of connective tissue.

Tenderness variations in different muscles have been shown in studies

by Ramsbottom et al. (1945), Ramsbottom and Strandine (1948), Paul and

Bratzler (1955b), Cover et al. (1957), Ginger and Weir (1958), and Cover

et al. (1962c and 1962d) . Tenderness varies within muscles has been demon­

strated by Ginger and Weir (1958) and other workers. Studies pointed out

there was less difference in tenderness within muscles than between muscles.

Cover et al. (1962a) suggested that the structural differences in

muscl es influenced the tenderness . Cover et al. found collagen content was

higher in biceps femoris than in longissimus dorsi muscles at 61 to 80 C.

There was little difference between the two muscles at 100 C in either tender ­

ness scores or collagen content . Studies by Bull (1951) , Winegarden et al.

(1952) , Hiner et al. (1955), and Paul and Bratzler (1955b) showed that exten­

sively us ed muscles had larger amounts of collagenous fibers and muscles of

13

support had smaller amounts. Hiner eta!. (1955) found in muscles of loco­

motion, the e lastic fibers were larger and more branched. In those muscles

where little or no strain occurred the elastin fibers were narrow and more

dispersed. The collagenous fibers contributed a much larger portion of the

connectiv e tissue than did the elastin fibers.

The experiments by Hiner eta!. (19 55) found that in muscles where

fatty deposits were evident the collagen fibers formed more of a loose net­

work between muscl e bundl es; in thos e with less fa t they appeared branched,

indicating that the presence of fat in a muscle had an influence on tenderness .

Husaini eta!. (1950), Cover et a!. (1956) , Cover eta!. (1958), Dawson eta!.

(1959), and Wellington and Stouffer (1959) showed that a correlation existed

between intramuscular fat and tenderness . There was a trend for tenderness

to in rease with an increase in the intramuscular fat. Cover eta!. (1956)

a nd Wellington and Stouffer (1959) found factors other than marbling had a

grea:er influence on tenderness . The amount of fat present in the cut

accounted for only 7 to 10 percent of th e variation in tenderness . Bull (1951)

suggest ed the greater amount of fat present made the meat more tender for

fat s1retched the connective tissue , making it more easily ruptured during

cook:ng.

Due to a slight trend toward greater tenderness in cooked beef from

anirruls with a higher degree of marbling . carcass grade may be an indica­

tion of tenderness . Aldrich and Lowe (1954) , Cover and Hostetler (1960) ,

and Hood (1960) found little difference between grade and tenderness of cooked

beef. Cover et a!. (1958) noted that cooked meat from higher carcass grades

with a higher degree of marbling tended to be slightly more tender. The

degree of marbling may explain the differences in results obtained.

Ramsbottom and Strandine (1948). Husaini et al. (1950). Griswold (1955),

14

and Paul and Bratzler (1955a) found that cooked meat from the high er carcass

grades was more tender than meat from the lower grades . Paul and Bratzler

(1955b) found that the tenderness of some muscles seemed to be affected by

grade while others were not. These results indicate that factors other than

grade had a n influence on tenderness .

Studies by P aul et al. (1950) showed that the presence of bone in a cut

had little or no effect upon the tenderness of cooked meat .

Cover et al. (1962b) suggested hydration as a factor involved in tender­

ness of meat. Loss of water during heating affected the density of the muscle

which influenced the tenderness . Cover et a l. (196 2b) found more fibers per

unit area in steaks broiled to a higher temperature .

Husaini et a l. (1950) found a c los e negative correlation between tender­

ness values and alkali-insoluble proteins. No correlation was found between

tenderness and total nitrogen , trichloracetic acid-soluble nitrogen , non­

protein nitrogen , or heat coagulable nitrogen .

T enderness decreased as protein was denatured by heat and was in­

fluenced by degree of doneness. Visser et al. (1960) reported though cooking

time was increased with increas ed internal temperatures, average tender-

ness values were about the same. Cover (1959), Hostetler and Cover (1961) ,

and Cover et al. (1962d) reported higher shear force for steaks broiled to a

higher internal temperature . Dawson et al. (1959) reported that shear force

15

values decreased with increased internal temperature . Tenderness was

affected by the length of cooking time and by the degr ee of doneness as indi­

cated in studies by Cover et al. (1957) a nd Dawson et al. (1959). Cover

et al. (1957 and 1962c) reported different muscles were affected differently

by degree of doneness and length of cooking time .

Lowe (1955) suggested that protein cooked at higher temperatures was

toughened to a greater extent than at low temperatures and cooking time

rather than cooking temperature was the determining factor . Data obtained

by Cover (1943), Ramsbottom and Strandine (1948), and Bramblett et al.

(1959) agreed with Lowe . Cover (1943) observed that roasts were more ten­

der when the rate of heat penetration was slower . Ramsbottom and Strandine

(1948) found that most mus cles became less tender when heated quickly to

170 F internal tempe rature. Bramblett et al. (1959) cooked paired cuts a t

63 C (145 F) and 68 C (155 F) to the same internal temperature. Shear force

values indicated meat cooked at 63 C for a longer time was more tender than

the cuts cooked at 68 C for a shorter time . Aldrich and Lowe (1954) noticed

a slight tenderizing effect for cuts cooked a longer period of time .

Reasons for the variation in tenderness between muscles may be due to

the effect of time and temperatur e on protein fiber and connective tissue .

Exper iments by Ramsbottom et a l. (1945), Winegarden et al. (1952), and

Cover (1959) showed that connective tissue improved in tenderness upon

heating. Ramsbottom et al. (1945) and Winegarden et al. (1952) found the

behavior of connective tissue during heating was related to the proportion of

collagen and elastin and tha t hydrolys is of collagen was affected to a greater

16

extent than e lastin . Dawson e t al. {1959) found that tenderness did not in­

crease consistently with increased hydrolysis of collagen . Rams bottom et al.

{1945) and Cover (1959) found other fac tors affecting tenderness included

denaturation of proteins; meat became tougher upon heating . Ramsbottom

et al. {1945) reported that hardening a nd shrinkage of the muscle fibers to­

gether with changes to the protein exerted a greater negative effect on tender­

ness than the positive effect of partial hydrolysis of connective tissue.

Flavor, color , odor, juiciness, tenderness , and texture ar e inter­

related and influence consumer acceptanc e . Volatile, odorous compounds

driven off during heating of meat produce a less flavorful product.

Wanderstock and Miller (1948 ) found that principal palatability differences

among roasts occurred in aroma, flavor of fat, fl avor of lean , tenderness,

quality of juice , a nd juiciness.

Studies by Gaddis et al. {1950) found that fat added flavor to cooked

meat. It was felt that the pr esence of fat stimulated the salivary glands and

increased the impression of juiciness, richness, and smoothness during

chewing. Dawson et al. {1959) found the fl avor of beef from one animal might

be enhanced by an increase in fat content and fat of cuts from different

animals might vary in character so that flavor differences were due to the

quali ty as well as to the quantity of fat. Studies by Cole et al. {1960) found

that a trained taste panel preferred broile d ground beef patties in direct pro­

por t ion to fat content. The 45 percent fat ground beef patties were preferred

67 percent of the time compared to the 15 percent fat ground beef patties

preferred 27 percent of the time.

Griswold (1955) and Dawson et al. (1959) found that flavor scores for

cooked meat ranked higher for prime than for cuts of lower grades.

Paul et al. (1950) in studying the effect of presence of bone upon

different factors in cooking meat found flavor scores between cuts cooked

with bone and cuts cooked without bone were too small to be significant.

17

Bull (1951) suggested that flavor varied in different muscles in that

cuts from the much used muscles seemed to contain more flavoring material

than those from little used muscles .

Kurtz (1959) reported flavor to be quite complicated chemically with

odor having an influence upon flavor . Crocker (1948) reported the flavor of

cooked beef to be mainly odor rather than taste and flavor of raw meat was

mainly confined to the juices. Cooked meat flavor appeared to be due to

chemical changes occurring in the fiber rather than in the juice.

Kramlich and Pearson (1958) found that heating meat intensified the

flavor indicating that full flavor development may be due to heating of the

juice and fibers together. Also flavor of raw and cooked beef appeared to be

clos ely related to odor .

Aldrich and Lowe (1954) reported that when meat was roasted to an

internal temperature of 90 C and cooking continued for an additional hour

juiciness decreased and an undesirable sulphury flavor and odor developed.

Flavor scores were not significantly different for beef roasted at different

temperatures to the same internal temperature (Bramblett et al., 1959) .

Experiments by Barylko-Pikielna (1957) suggested that a ll mus cle

fractions share in forming th e flavor. Typical meat flavor appeared only

after subjecting the meat to heating and was probably associated with the

compounds formed in the breakdown of proteins during denaturation.

18

Wood (1961) demonstrated tha t the development of the brown color and

meaty flavor of ox-muscle extr ac ts was due to the Maillard r eaction occurring

between the proteins and the r educing sugars .

It is hard to separate aroma and flavor, since many flavor properties

a re the result of odor sensations . Flavor of meat develops during cooking

and presumably arises from both the mus cle fiber proteins and the juice.

The nature and intensity of meat flavor depend in part on the length of time

and temperature of cooking.

19

METHOD OF PROCEDURE

General Design of the Experiment

This investigation was a study of the rate of heat penetration at three

temperatures, 400 F, 350 F, and 300 F, on two grades and two thicknesses

of Porterhouse steak and on ground beef cooked to three degrees of doneness.

The study a lso included the effects of cooking time and temperature on sol­

uble protein, thiamine, weight loss, moisture, press fluid, tenderness, and

flavor.

Two different grades (U.S. D. A. Good and Choice), two different thick­

nesses (1 inch and 1 1/2 inch) of Good Grade Porterhouse steak, and ground

beef were purchased from a local retail market. U. S. D. A. Choice Grade

Porterhouse steaks were cut 1 inch in thickness. U. S . D. A. Good Grade

Porterhouse steaks were cut two different thicknesses. A comparison was

made of two thicknesses and two grades .

The Porterhouse steaks were cut to the desired thickness for the differ-

ent grades in groups of three. The center cut in each group was used for the

control and the cuts on either side were charcoal broiled for the experiments.

Ground beef was mixed thoroughly by the butcher to insure a homogenous

sampling. A portion of the raw ground beef was used for the control and the

remainder was prepared for the broiling experiments.

20

Preparation of Meat

Porterhouse steak

Meat was placed in weighed pans . The weight of th e raw meat was

calculated by subtracting the weight of the pan from the total weight of the

pan and meat. The width of th e fat around the outer edge of the Porterhous e

steak was measured in centimeter s at four different places in approximately

the same position for each steak. The fat around the steak was scored to

prevent curling during broiling. The steaks wer e covered with saran wrap

to prevent evaporation of moisture. The meat was held in the refrigerator

a t a bout 35 F.

Before broiling, thermocouples were sewed at the surfaces, center,

and bone to insure accurate recording of the temperatures . One thermo­

couple was attached to the surface of the meat next to the heat source , one

was attached to the surface of the mea t away from the heat source, one was

placed internally in the center , and one was placed at the mid-point on the

surface of the bone.

Ground beef

One hundred and fourteen grams (1/4 pound) of raw ground beef was

us ed for each pattie . The ground beef patti es were shaped by a ha mburger

press to a diameter of 10.4 centimeters (4 inches) and a uniform thickness

of 1. 4 centimeters (1 /2 inch) . Three ground beef patties , each weighing

114 grams, were use d per sample to give a t otal raw weight of 342 grams .

Three patties were placed in each pan and covered with saran wrap to prevent

exces s evaporation. The ground beef patties were then held in the r efrig ­

erator a t about 35 F .

21

Thermocouples were placed on one pattie of each sample of the ground

beef before broiling so that the r at e of heat penetration could be m easured .

One thermocouple was placed internally. A skewer was inserted horizontally

to the center of the pattie, then removed . The thermocoupl e was then placed

internally to the center of the meat. The pattie was laid on the bottom

thermocouple as it was placed on the grill and the top thermocouple was

placed on the s urface of the pattie away from the heat. All three patties of

the same sample were placed on the grill next to each other so they would be

subj ec t to as near the same conditions as the pattie with the thermocouples

attached.

Cooking Method a nd Equipment

The meat was placed on the grill of the char coal broiler and broiled a t

a specific temperature to the desired degr ee of doneness , determined by

fina l internal temperature and color pigment. The internal tempera ture , the

temperature of the bone, and the surface t emperatures of the meat wer e

measured by thermocouples and recorded on an Electronic Universal nine­

point strip chart recorder provided by the Taylor Instrument Company.

Tempera tures were recorded in 3-minute intervals, except at the turning

point and final internal temperature , they were recorded in 1-minute inter­

vals . Taylor Instrument Company developed a special coil type thermometer

which measured the temperature at the surface of the grill.

22

The rare meat samples were turned after the internal temperature

reached 85 F and cooking continued to 135- 140 F. The medium done meat

samples were turned at 100 F and cooked to 155 - 160 F . The well done sam­

ples were turned at 110 F and continued cooking to an internal temperature

of 170 F or above. In each case the cooking temperature of the grill was

controlled by manipulation of the coals and grill. Three to six replications

of each meat sample were cooked at three temperatures to three degrees of

doneness except medium and well done 1 1/2-inch Porterhouse steaks.

Medium and well done 1 1/2-inch Porterhouse steaks were cooked at 350 F .

At the end of the cooking period the meat was removed from the grill

and weighed. The necessary samples for flavor , shear, and press fluid

determinations were removed. The remaining portion was trimmed of ex­

cess fat, connective tissues and the bone removed and weighed. The meat

was ground and mixed thoroughly to eliminate possible variations in sampling .

Tests were then conducted to determine th e effect of each variable (grade ,

thickness, bone-in , ground beef, degree of doneness , cooking temperature)

on the soluble protein content, thiamine value , and moisture.

Chemical Tests

Soluble protein

A 50-gram sample of cooked meat and a 30-gram sample of raw meat

were used for soluble protein determination by a modification of the Sal win

(1954) Biuret test for soluble protein.

23

Thiamine

Meat samples were tested fluormetr ically for thiamine by a modifica­

tion of the Conner-Straub (1941) method for thiamine determination.

Moisture

Duplicate 5-gram samples of the meat were weighed and the samples

were placed in the dehydrator at 60 to 65 C for 2 hours, then dr ied for 5

hours under a vacuum of 25 millimeters of mercury at 95 to 100 C a nd the

percentage of moisture calculated.

Weight loss

The percentage of weight loss of the bone-less meat was calculated

from the differences in initial and final weights of meat with tlhe bone weight

subtracted.

Press fluid

Fifty-gram samples were pressed in a succolomenter fo,r 10 minutes

at 2, 500 pounds pressure per square inch . The fluid was coll<ected in a

graduate cylinder and the total press fluid volume was read to the nearest

0. 1 milliliter.

Tenderness

Tenderness values were determined by the Warner-Brat:zler shear.

One inch diameter cores of meat were cut parallel to the fiber·s in four

different places and sheared on the Warne r - Bratzler shear. Tenderness

values were obtained for all samples of Porterhouse steak.

Flavor

A panel of four judges scored the cooked meat for flavor using the

Hedonic Scale (See Appendix). The panel scored samples of similar thick­

ness from approximately the same position in each sample of meat. The

same judges scored throughout the study.

24

25

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Cooking Time, Temperature, and Degree of Doneness

The rate of heat penetration progressively slowed down as the internal

temperature increased (Table 1 and Figure 1). One-inch Good Grade Porter­

house steak broiled at 400 F, from rare to medium, a difference of 20 de­

grees, took 5 minutes; from medium to well done a difference of 15 degrees

took 17 minutes . One-inch Good steaks broiled at 350 F, from rare to

medium, a difference of 20 degrees took 18 minutes . At 300 F from rare to

medium took 18 minutes and from medium to well done took 11 minutes.

A difference of 20 degrees from rare to medium at the three cooking

temperatures took 5, 4, and 18 minutes or an average of 9 minutes . A differ­

ence of 15 degrees from medium to well done at the three cooking tempera­

tures took 17, 18, and 11 minutes or an average of 15 minutes. Similar

results were obtained for other meat samples .

Results showed rate of heat penetration varied for thickness, grade,

and ground beef at a given cooking temperature and final internal temperature.

Ground beef broiled rare at 400 F took an average time of 12 minutes, l-inch

Porterhouse steak took an average of 17 minutes, 1 1/2-inch steak took an

average of 23 minutes and l-inch Choice Grade steak took 30 minutes . There

was an average difference of 13 minutes in the broiling time for l-inch Good

Grade steak compared to the thicker steaks . Between the Good and Choice

26

Table 1. Cooking temperature as related to degree of doneness and cooking time

Degree of Cooking Kind of meat

Cooking doneness temperature time

minutes

Rare 400 F l-inch Good Grade Porterhouse 17 350 F 18 300 F 19

400 F 1 1/2-inch Good Grade Porterhouse 30 350 F 31 300 F 36

400 F l-inch Choice Grade Porterhouse 23 350 F 28 300 F 40

400 F Ground beef 12 350 F 15 300 F 18

Medium 400 F l-inch Good Grade Porterhouse 22 350 F 25 300 F 38

400 F l-inch Choice Grade Porterhouse 33 350 F 33 300 F 45

400 F Ground beef 16 350 F 25 300 F 26

Well done 400 F l-inch Good Grade Porterhouse 39 350 F 40 300 F 49

400 F l-inch Choice Grade Porterhouse 44 350 F 40 300 F 53

400 F Ground beef 19 350 F 25 300 F 37

27

PORTERHOUSE STEAK 1" THICK U.S.D.A. GOOD GRADE

TEMP (°F) RARE MEDIUM WELL DONE 400 ,..-,.-...,--r---,----r--,

300 1---+---+--+--+--+--1

4oo• 2oo1---+-+-+-+--+---l

; /J

.. ·· . ~ ~

v . I

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

T KEY

300 1---+-+--+--+--+-l - - Internal-- -

Bone""""'"'"'"" '"

350° 2001---+--+--+--+-+--l

100 •• :-/'

~ v

~ 17

...... ·-~-... r ~

.... ·· V"

TIME (min) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

300 1---+-+-+-+--+---1

Joo• 2oo 1---+-+--+--+--+-l

•.. -; 100 1------;Y-+-+-+--+---1

f

.. ······" > , .. -~ ........ .:· v

I TIME (m;n ) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure 1. Rate of heat penetration in Porterhouse steak and ground beef.

28

PORTERHOUSE STEAK 112" THICK U.S.D.A. GOOD GRADE

TEMP (°F) 400

30 0

400° 200

100

v

RARE

...t ~

0 10 20 30 40 50 60

300 1-+---+--+--+---1---t

350° 2001-+-+-+--+-'f------l

100 •• ·••• ......

~v

MEDIUM

KEY Internal--

Bone"'""''""""""'

1.~ ( ... ,;0'~ ,,..:or

WELL DONE

.... ::;:;P. k~~

.... -~~""' .-···V ~

TIME (min) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

400 .---.,...-"T'"-r-T---r--.

300 1--t---t--+--+--ff------l

300° 200 1-+-+-+--+-'f------l

100 l····::;;

rf" TIME (m;n) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure 1. (Continued)

29

PORTERHOUSE STEAK 1" THICK U.S.D.A. CHOICE GRADE

RARE TEMP ( °F)

4oo~~~~~~~

300 1---+--+---1------J-.-1--1

400° 200 1---+--+---1------J-.-1--l

MEDIUM

-

--

v· ~1

tl

WEll DONE

~ ~ ~

#

ll TIME ( min) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 2 0 30 40 50 6 0

400

KEY

300 _ lnternol--1 _

Son e"'""''" '''"'''" '

350° 200 - 1---1---+--+- - -

)~ -

,,.·· 100

··//.:~··

I I TIME (min ) 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

300 1-+--+---1-....J- 1-

3 o o• 2oo 1---+--+---1------J-.-+--l

100 .... ::;; ...... •

?' TIME (min ) 0 10 20 30 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure 1. (Continued)

GROUND BEEF 4 OZ PATIIES

RARE TEMP ( °F)

400r-,--,--r-,--r-o

300~+--+~--+-~-1

400° 200 ~~ ! ; ,

1oo I ~

MEDIUM

/

/~ I

30

WELL DONE

/

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

KEY

300~+--+~~+--+-4 ~ Internal-- _

Sottom""'""""""'

350°

I I 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

300~+--r-1--+--r-4

100.//

I v ,.-. ········'" -I /./"" I

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60

Figure 1. (Continued )

31

Gra de steaks there was an average difference of 6 minutes with the Choice

Grade steaks taking the longer time; indicating the higher fat of Choice meat

slowed down th e rate of heat penetration.

Length of cooking period was affected by the cooking temperature .

Choice Grade Porterhouse steak, l-inch thick broiled rare at 400 F took

23 minutes , at 35 0 F took 28 minutes, and at 300 F took 40 minutes. The

difference in time was 5 minutes between 400 and 350 F and 12 minutes

between 350 and 300 F . Although the difference in cooking temperature was

the same, 50 degrees, the rate of heat penetration was more r apid at the

higher temper a ture. Similar results obtained for the other meat samples

are shown in Table 1 and Figure 1.

As the interna l temperature of the meat inc r eased average cooking

time increased (Figure 1). Internal temperature t ended to follow the bone

temperature indicating bone may have an influence upon the rate of heat

penetration .

Protein is denatured by heat, the extent of the denaturation is influ­

enced by the temperature and the time of heating. Results shown in Figur e 2

and Appendix Tables 11 , 12, and 13 indicate that cooking temperature , length

of the cooking period, and degree of doneness affected protein retention .

Good Grade , 1 inch thick steaks cooked rare at 400 F and 300 F, took

an average of 17 and 19 minutes and gave the s a me soluble protein retention

of 38 percent; Good Grade , 1 1/2 inch thi ck took 30 and 36 minutes for the

100

90

80

"' :8 70 "' i!l "' 60 ....

" N 50 0 .... 0. 40

" "' c.> 30 ....

"' 0, 20

10

10 20 30

100

90

10 20 30

l - inch Good Gra de Porterhouse steak

\ I

~

40 5 0 60 70 80 90 Time (minutes)

40 50

1 1/2- inch Good Grade Porterhous e steak

Rar e "'

Medium o Well done D

400 F 350 F 300 F

60 70 80 90 Time (minutes)

Figure 2 . Protein retention as related to time, cooking temperature, and degree of doneness.

32

33

100

90 ~'"' l-inch Choice Grade 80 "'\ '"--, Porterhouse steak

"' 0 " "--,\ :g 70

"' Q) 60 H I .s

50 \ \ "' b I H

40 \ \ 0. .., \ "' \ "' 30 " H

~ "' D. 20

' 10 ~

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Time (minutes)

100

90 \ Ground beef

80 ~\ "' \\ r--s ~ 70

"' 'v' 2 "' 60

~ H

"' . ., 50 Rare A 0 .... Medium 0 0. 40

\ " Well done 0

"' 30 400 F " ~

.... 350 F "' D. 20 300 F

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Time (minutes)

Figure 2 . (Continued)

34

two temperatures and protein retention was 50 percent; for l-inch Choice

steaks , the time at the two cooking temperatures was 23 and 40 minutes and

protein retention was 68 and 67 percent. At a given internal end point,

diminished time and increased temperature resulted in a similar soluble

protein retention as increased time and decreased temperature. The data

indicated there existed a relationship in protein retention between the duration

of exposure and heat intensity . This agrees with the findings of Rice and

Beuk (1953) . With few exceptions , longer time resulted in greater soluble

protein denaturation , higher temperature of cooking also resulted in greater

denaturation than lower temperatures . Bramblett (1959) indicated that both

time and temperature affected the rate of denaturation.

The rate of change in soluble protein increased with cooking tempera­

ture and time was related to degree of doneness . Neurath et al. (1944)

showed rate of protein denaturation increased with temperature.

A more constant rate of change in protein occurred at the 350 F tem­

perature than a t the other temperatures (Figure 3). At 400 F, l-inch Good

Grade, 1 1/2 -inch Good Grade, Choice steaks , and ground beef r etained

38, 50, 67, and 57 percent soluble protein ; at 350 F they retained 62, 69,

63, and 61 percent; and at 300 F they retained 38, 50 , 67, and 61 percent,

respectively .

Soluble protein retention was inversely r elated to the degree of done­

ness (Figure 2). One-inch Good Grade steaks broiled rare, medium, and

well done at 350 F retained 62, 42, and 37 percent protein; in 11/ 2-inch

steaks to the three degrees of doneness, 68, 28 , and 21 percent protein was

35

"' 80

0 70 Rare :c

"' I 2 60 I <ll

I I I I ... 50 I

"' I I I I . ., I I I 40 I I 0 I

I I I I I ... I I

I I 0. 30

I I I +> I I al 20 I I I " I I I I l ...

10

l I I

<ll

i 0.. I I I I

400 F 350 F 300 F

"' 80

.9 70 Medium d

I <ll I ...., 60 I I <ll ... I I "' 50 I I . ., I I

I I

0 40 I I I I

I I I I I ... I I

0. 30 I I I I I I d I I I I I

l I <ll 20

j " I

l I I ... 10 I ' I <ll I I i

I 0.. ' '

40 0 F 350 F 300 F

"' 80

Well done :8 70 1" Good --- --"' 1 1/2 " Good t 60 ----... 1" Choice ---"'

50 Ground beef N ---

40 0

I ... I 0. 30 I

I d 20

I I I

<ll

I '

I I I I

" I I ... 10 I I I

I

I <ll I I I

I I

0.. ' I I I

400 F 35 0 F 300 F

Figure 3. Protein retention as related to degree of doneness a nd cooking temperature.

36

reta ined , and in Choice 63 , 47, and 19 percent. Higher internal tempera­

tures produced greater soluble protein denaturation. This agreed with the

findings of Bautista (1961), who found soluble nitrogen decreased as internal

temperature increased. Statistical ana lyses gave a significant negative cor­

relation of soluble protein retention and degree of doneness of -0. 67 for Good

Grade steaks, - 0. 37 for Choice, and - 0. 59 for ground beef.

Thia mine

Thiamine value of beef is dependent upon composition and varies in

different cuts. Thiamine is found in the l ean portion and the cooking process

affects its retention, for thiamine is water soluble and heat labile.

Results of the study on thiamine retention are shown in Table 2 and

Appendix Tables 11, 12 , and 13. The r es ults indicated that thiamine reten­

tion va ried for thickness, grade, and gr ou nd beef depending upon cooking

time, cooking temperature, a nd degr ee of doneness .

Generally, the greater degree of doneness r esulted in a lower percent­

age of thiamine r etention for all thr ee cooking temperatures (See Table 2).

For example, ground beef cooked at 400 F to r are, medium, and well done

retained 70 , 67, and 46 percent thia mine; a t 350 F, 93, 87, and 81 percent ;

and at 300 F, 91 , 80, and 59 percent. Thiamine retention was directly re­

lated to inter na l temperature . Statistical analys es indicated a significant

negative correlation between thiamine and degree of doneness, ranging from

-0. 59 to -0. 61. This coincides with studies of Cover and Smith (1956), that

higher interna l temperature resulted in lower thiamine retention.

Table 2. Percentage of thiamine and moisture retention

Rare Medium Well done Percent retention Percent retention

Minutes Percent retention

Minutes Minutes --------Thiamine Moisture Thiamine Mois ture Thiamine Moisture

l-inch Good 400 F 17 75 86 22 78 84 39 48 66 350 F 18 72 87 25 86 84 40 72 82 300 F 19 78 89 38 72 84 49 77 79

1 1/2-inch Good 400 F 30 77 83 350 F 31 72 88 51 78 78 55 72 76 300 F 36 92 89

l-inch Choice 400 F 23 90 84 33 69 81 44 61 72 350 F 29 86 89 32 75 82 40 47 64 300 F 40 86 88 45 64 79 53 69 77

Ground beef 400 F 12 70 91 16 67 91 19 46 79 350 F 15 93 96 25 87 88 25 81 86 300 F 18 91 95 26 80 89 37 59 81

"' ...,

38

Final internal temperature tended to be a more important factor than

cooking t emperature for destruction of thiamine as shown in Table 2. There

existed a greater variation in thiamine retention as related to degree of done­

ness than to cooking temperature . Time appeared to be a related factor .

Shorter time resulted in a higher percentage of thiamine retention.

For example, l-inch Good Grade steaks broiled at 350 F to the three degrees

of doneness took 18, 25, and 40 minutes and retained 72, 86, and 72 percent

thiamine; 1 1/2 -inch Good Grade steaks took 31 , 51, and 55 minutes and

retained 72, 78, and 72 percent thiamine. The time of cooking was different

in the two thicknesses of steaks a lthough a pproximately the same per centage

of thiamine destruction occurred , indicating time was a factor in thiamine

destruction . Cover eta!. (1944) and Tucker et a!. (1946) demonstrated total

thiamine retention was dependent upon the cooking time.

Data shown in Table 3 indicated time was a factor in thiamine r etention.

As the length of the cooking period incr eased the p ercentage of th iamine

r etention per minute decreas ed. One-inch Good Grade steaks broiled at

400 F, rare, medium , and well done retained 4. 4, 3. 5, and 1. 2 percent

thiamine. Similar results were obtained for all cooking temperatures.

Thiamine and moisture retention followed somewhat the same curve as

shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5. Statistics showed that there was a positiv e

correlation between thiamine and moisture retention ranging between 0. 46

and 0. 49. Moisture and thiamine retention tended to be related to a greater

degree in the Choice Grade and ground beef. Cover and Smith (1956) re­

ported a relationship between moisture and thiamine.

39

Table 3. Percentage of thiamine retention per minute

Rar e Medium Well done

l-inch Good Grade

4 00 F 4.4 3. 5 1. 2 350 F 4 . 0 3.4 1.8 300 F 4. 1 1.9 1.6

1 1/2-inch Good Grade

400 F 2. 6 350 F 2.3 1.5 1.3 300 F 2.6

l - inch Choice Grade

400 F 3.9 2.1 1.4 350 F 3.0 2 . 3 1.2 300 F 2 . 2 1.4 1.3

Ground beef

400 F 5.8 4 . 2 2.4 350 F 6 .2 3. 5 3. 2 300 F 5. 1 3.1 1.6

100

90

" 80 .s ;:;

70 Q)

d) ...

60 ~ ·a 50

" ;§ 40 c

Q)

" 30 ... Q) p.

20

10

10

100

90

" 80

.s ;:; 70 Q)

Q) ... 60 Q)

" ·a 50 .~ :5 40

"' Q) 30 " ....

Q) p.., 20

10

10

20

20

l-inch Good Grade Porterhouse steak

_......kl

\ \ ~

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 'Time (minutes)

1 1/ 2-inch Good Grade Porterhouse steak

Rare 6

Medium 0

Well done o 400 F 350 F

300 F

30 40 50 60 Time (minutes)

70 80 90

Figure 4. Thiamine retention as related to time , cooking temperature, and degree of doneness.

40

41

100 -~

90 ~--- l-inch Choice Grade ----~ Porterhous e steak

c 80 I

.s \

" 70 '_....,l;l 2 ~-"' 60 "9 ... "' c '§ 50

'" :s 40

" "' 30 C) ... "' p.. 20

10

10 2 0 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Time (minutes)

100

90 \ Ground beef

c 80 \ 0

:g 70

~ '

2 " ' "' .... 60 '1!1 "' \ c '§ 50

'" Ill 5 40

" Rare ""

"' 30 Medium o C) .... Well done D "' p..

20 400 F

10 350 F

300 F

10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Time (minutes)

Figure 4 . (Continued)

" .s 0 <ll d) .... <ll .... B "' ·s s ..... "

60

50

40

@ 3G-<ll p, 20

10

10 20 30 40 50

l-inch Good Grade Porterhouse steak

60 70 80 90 Time (minutes)

100 ,..___ I-~-

90 -.........:.::=----.....-.... 1 1/2- inch Good Gra de Porterhous e steak

" ,g 80

" 2 <ll ....

70.

2:: 60 B "' 50

·~ ..... " <ll

"' .... <ll p,

40

30

20

10

10 20

........_ .....

Rare"' Medium 0

Well done 0

400 F 350 F

300 F

30 40 50 60 70 80 90 Time (minutes)

Figure 5. Moisture retention as related to time, cooking temperature, and degree of donenes s.

42

100 ..:::...... ;;:,.__ -::---

90 ............ - -=----........ -~ ~ '

" 80 "-..._ 's..__-e .s ;: 70 '-8 <ll 0) ...

60 <ll ... il 50 Cll ·s s 40 ;: Q)

<:.> 30 ... Q) p.. 2

10

10 20 30 40 50 Time (minutes)

'

"' '-,iJ

.s

"' Q)

0) ... Q) ... il Rare " (/)

·s Medium 0 s Well done 0 ;: 400 F Q)

" 350 F ... Q) p., 300 F

10 20 30 40 50 60 Time (minutes)

Figure 5. (Continued)

l-inch Choice Grade Porterhouse steak

90

Ground beef

70 80 90

43

44

The additional moisture in the thicker steaks appeared to influence

thiamine retention. Cover and Smith (1956) and Dawson et al. (1959) found

thiamine retention was related to the thicker steaks and to moisture loss;

that evaporation had a cooling effect on both the surface of the steak and the

internal temperature enough to prevent thermal destruction of thiamine as

long as the surface remained moist. Percentage of thiamine loss per minute

shown in Table 4 indicates a greater loss per minute in the thinner steaks.

Table 4 . Percentage of thiamine loss per minute

l-inch Good Grade

400 F 350 F 300 F

1 1/2-inch Good Grade

400 F 350 F 300 F

Rare

1.5 1.6 1.2

0. 8 0. 9 0. 2

Medium

1.0 0. 6 0. 7

0.4

Well done

1.3 0. 7 0. 5

0.5

A difference in the rate of thermal destruction of thiamine was indi-

cated between the two grades (Table 2. page 37). Choice Grade steaks

broiled rare retained an average of 87 percent thiamine for the three cooking

temperatures , medium done steaks retained 69 percent thiamine, and well

45

done steaks retained 59 percent thiamine . One-inch Good Grade steaks

broiled to the three degrees of doneness retained an average of 75 percent,

79 percent, and 66 percent average for the three cooking temperatures. The

difference in rate of thermal destr uction of thiamine may have been due to

the higher fat content in the higher grade.

Both time and temperature tended to be important factors affecting

thiamine retention in ground beef. There existed a direct correlation be­

tween thiamine destruction and time, cooking temperature, and internal tem­

perature . Mayfield and Medrick (1949}, Farrer (1955), Cover and Smith

(1956}, Noble and Gomez (1960) , and Lushbough et al. (1960) found higher

cooking temperature, internal temperature, and longer time increased the

destruction of thiamine.

Weight Loss , Moisture , Press Fluid

The greater part of weight loss during the cooking process is from

evaporation of water, other losses come from the changes in fat and protein.

The percentage of fat, moisture, and protein contained in meat affects

weight loss.

In general, higher cooking temperatures resulted in greater weight

loss . This was illustrated by the results obtained for l-inch Good Grade

steaks cooked to rare, medium, and well done at three different tempera­

tures as shown in Table 5. Good Grade l-inch Porterhouse steaks cooked

to an internal temperature of 135 F for rare at 400 F , 350 F, and 300 F,

had a weight loss of 29, 22 , and 18 percent, respectively. Medium done

Table 5. Weight loss, moisture retention, and press fluid

Rare Medium Well done Time Weight Moisture Press Time Weight Moisture Press Time Weight Moisture Press min . l oss retention fluid min. loss retention fluid min . loss retention fluid

percent percent ml. percent percent ml. percent percent ml. l-inch Good

400 F 17 29 86 9.2 22 32 84 8 . 2 39 51 66 1.9 350 F 18 22 87 9.2 25 30 84 10. 0 40 36 82 2.0 300 F 19 18 89 10 . 57 38 27 84 9 . 9 49 35 79 4.95

1 1/2-inch Good 400 F 30 31 83 6.03 350 F 31 21 88 9.87 51 36 78 5 . 4 55 40 76 1.5 300 F 36 20 89 12.57

l - inch Choice 400 F 23 24 84 8.48 33 32 81 6.87 44 43 72 3.43 350 F 29 22 89 9.74 33 30 82 7.0 40 47 64 2.67 300 F 40 28 88 9 . 0 45 32 79 4 . 7 53 39 77 3.53

Ground beef 400 F 12 35 91 0.0 16 35 91 0.0 19 48 79 0.0 350 F 18 27 96 0. 23 25 42 88 0.0 25 42 86 0. 13 300 F 18 27 95 0. 17 26 36 89 0. 06 37 45 81 0.0

... 0>

47

stea ks cooked at the three temperatures had a weight loss of 32 , 30, and

27 percent . Steaks cooked well done lost 51 , 36, and 35 percent of their

initial weight. Increased cooking temperature increased both the rate and

extent of weight loss . Similar r esults were obtained for the different thick­

nesses, grades, and ground beef. Cooking temperature was related to

weight loss as pointed out by Cover (1949) , Wie rbicki and Deatherage (1958),

and Brambl ett (1959) .

Higher internal temperature resulted in greater weight loss . At a

given cooking temperature, weight loss had a direct correlation with in­

creased degree of doneness (Table 5). One-inch Good Grade steaks cooked

at 400 F for rare , medium, and well done lost 29, 32, and 51 percent of its

weight ; at 350 Floss was 22, 30, and 36 percent; and at 300 Fit was 18, 27,

and 35 percent. These findings were in agr eem ent with Aldrich and Lowe

(1954), P aul and Bratzler (1955b), Cover et a l. (1957) , Dawson (1959) ,

Dawson et al. (1959), Lushbough and Schweigert (1960) , Cole et al. (1960) ,

Viss er et al. (1960) , and Cover e t al. (1962b).

Good Grade steaks broiled r a r e at the three temperatures took 17, 18,

and 19 minutes and weight loss was 29 , 22, a nd 18 percent; at medium it

was 22, 25, and 38 minutes and weight loss was 32, 30, and 37 percent ; in

well done steaks time was 39 , 40, and 49 minutes , with weight loss of 51,

36 , and 35 percent. There was little correlation in time and weight loss for

steaks cooked a t the three temperatures to three degrees of doneness.

Weight loss had a negative correlation with moisture retention and

press fluid . Good Grade 1 1/2-inch steaks broiled r a r e at the thr ee cooking

48

temperatures (400 F, 350 F, and 300 F) lost 31, 21, and 20 percent weight

and retained 83, 88, and 89 percent moisture ; press fluid was 6 . 0, 9. 9 , and

12.6 milliliters, respectively .

There was little variation in moisture retention for a given degree of

doneness between the different thicknesses and grades, indicating time would

have little influence on moisture retention , for the rate of heat penetration

was slower in both the 1 1/2-inch and Choice Grade steaks. Aldrich and

Lowe (1954), Hood (1960) , and Porter et al. (1962) reported no significant

difference in weight loss for different grades of meat. Average rate of heat

penetration for rare l-inch Good steaks was 18 minutes, for 1 1/2-inch

steaks the average rate was 33 minutes , and for Choice the average rate for

the three temperatures was 31 minutes . Average moisture retention was

87 percent for all the rare steaks cooked at the three temperatures . Similar

results are shown in Table 5, page 46, for the other degrees of doneness.

Results in Table 5 indicated that press fluid was affected by thickness

and grade. One-inch Good Grade beef usually had a higher press fluid value

than Choice or the 1 1/2-inch steaks . This is probably due to increased fat

content in the higher grade . Cuts from higher grade carcasses have a higher

percentage of fat content and lower moisture. Press fluid results for l-inch

Good Grade beef cooked rare at 400 F, 35 0 F, and 300 F were 9 .. 2, 9. 2 , and

10.57 milliliters; for Choice press fluid was 8. 48, 9. 74, and 9. 0 milliliters .

There was slightly less press fluid in the Choice than Good Grade. Medium

degree of doneness showed a similar pattern for press fluid. Rate of heat

penetration was directly related to press fluid in all steaks. Ramsbottom

49

et al. (1948), Wanderstock and Miller (1948), and Gaddis et al. (1950) found

more finished carcasses had less press fluid.

In ground beef, apparently loos ening the protein structure had an effect

on water holding capacity . Moisture retention was higher in ground beef

than in Porterhouse steaks, only a trace of press fluid was obtained. Hamm

(1960) suggested that the increased water holding capacity of ground meat

was due to the increased availability of protein polar groups for the binding

of the water, dipolar molecule.

Tenderness

Tenderness is a major factor involved in consumer acceptance of beef.

Tenderness is influenced by cooking method, time , temperature, degree of

doneness, and composition of meat.

Previous studies indicated that tenderness was affected by physical and

chemical changes brought about in the constituents of the meat . The degree

of change depended upon temperature and duration of heating. Time tended

to be the more important factor for collagen hydrolysis and temperature

appeared to toughen muscle fibers.

Results of this study found in Appendix Tables 8, 9, and 10 indicated

that there was little variation in tenderness for the three cooking tempera­

tures , degrees of doneness , or the rate of heat penetration. This pointed to

the fact that broiling Porterhouse steaks to rare, medium, and well done at

three different temperatures had little influence on tenderness. Visser

et al. (1960) reported that though cooking time was increased with increased

50

internal tempePature, average tenderness values were about the s a me.

Tenderness varied slightly throughout the cuts , indicating a difference

in tenderness for different muscl es . All the Porterhouse steaks were simi­

lar in t enderness indicating tenderness was not dependent on grade or

thickness.

The nature and intensity of m eat flavor depends in part on the composi­

tion of m eat , l ength of cooking time, cooking temperature , degree of done­

ness, and cooking method.

Results of this study (Table 6) indicated a slightly higher preference

for Choic e than Good Grade beef for a ll three degrees of doneness and cook­

ing tempera tures. Griswold (1955) and Dawson et a l. (1959) found flavor

was superior for the higher grades.

Degree of doneness and cooking temperature ha d little effect upon

acceptability of the meat, except the medium degree of doneness was pre­

ferred slightly above rare and well done. Bramblett et al. (1959) indicated

flavor scores were not significantly different for beef roasted at different

temperatures .

No undesirable fl avors developed during the cooking process that were

detecta bl e by the taste pane l. The m eat was equally well accepted by the

taste panel , with a preference for steak over ground beef.

51

Table 6 . Flavor values

Rare Medium Well done

l-inch Good Grade

400 F 7. ooa 7 . 00 6.58 350 F 6 . 75 6 . 83 6. 00 300 F 5. 92 7.50 7.25

1 1/2-inch Good Grade

400 F 7.89 350 F 6.42 7. 25 7.25 300 F 7 . 22

l-inch Choice Grade

400 F 7.25 7 . 00 6.33 350 F 7.00 7.25 7. 17 300 F 6.94 7.50 7.17

Ground beef

400 F 5 . 92 5.83 6.92 350 F 6 . 06 7. 33 7.17 300 F 4 . 75 6.58 6.83

a Meat was scored from 1 to 9, with 9 high.

52

Regression Analyses

Regression analyses were made using the following variables: thick-

ness, cooking temperature, internal temperature, cooking temperature x

internal temperature, and raw weight. The R2 values are shown in Table 7.

(R2 = error that could be accounted for this proportion of the time.) Using

these variables as predictions for cooking time made a difference of only

1 minute compared to time predictions without them.

Table 7. R2 values

Thiamine R2 R2

Good Grade .754 .465

Choice Grade .475 .79 1

Ground beef . 825 . 779

Protein R2

.545

. 813

.745

53

SUMMARY

This study was conducted on the effect of cooking temperature, degree

of doneness, and rate of heat penetration on Porterhouse steak and on ground

beef. Two thicknesses of steak were used, 1 inch and 1 l/2 inch , and two

grades, Choice and Good. The meat was cooked at three temperatures,

400 F, 350 F , and 300 .F, to three degrees of doneness, rare, medium, and

well done. The following tests were made on each sample: soluble protein,

thiamine , weight loss, moisture, press fluid, tenderness, and flavor.

Rate of heat penetration progressively s lowed down as the internal

temperature increased. Rate of heat penetration varied for thickness , grade ,

and ground beef. Length of cooking period was affected by the cooking tem­

perature.

Cooking time, temperature, and degree of doneness affected protein

retention. Longer time, higher cooking temperature, and greater degree of

doneness resulted in greater protein denaturation. There was a significant

negative correlation between soluble protein retention and degree of doneness

of -0. 67 for Good, -0 . 37 for Choice, and -0. 59 for ground beef. A more

constant rate for protein denaturation occurred at 350 F.

Thiamine destruction was related more to the final internal tempera­

ture than cooking time or cooking temperature. There was a significant

negative correlation between thiamine and degree of doneness, ranging from

54

-0. 59 to -0. 61. Statistics showed there was a positive correlation between

thiamine and moisture retention ranging between 0. 46 and 0. 49. There was

a difference in thiamine destruction between the grades.

Greater weight loss for all samples occurred at the higher cooking

temperatures and internal temperatures . Weight loss had a negative corre­

lation with moisture retention and press fluid. Rate of heat penetration had

little effect on moisture .

Moisture retention was higher in ground beef than in Porterhouse

steaks, only a trace of press fluid was obtained . Loosening the protein

structure had an effect on the water holding capacity of ground beef.

Average tenderness values for the steaks were about the same although

cooking time, temperature, degree of doneness, grade, and thickness varied.

Using the variables of this study for prediction of cooking time made a

difference of only 1 minute .

This was an exploratory study in which certain trends were indicated.

Testing was done on a limited number of samples with many variables and

further research is necessary.

55

LITERATURE CITED

AldriGh, P. J ., and B. Lowe. 1954 . Comparison of grades of beef rounds. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 30: 39-43.

Asselberg, E. A. , and J. R. Whitaker . 1961. Determination of water­holding capacity of ground cooked lean meat. Food Technology 15: 392-394.

Berylko-Pikielna, N. 1957. On the components of meat flavor. Przemyst Spozywczy 11 (1): 26-30. (Translated from Polish , published for the National Science Foundation and the Department of Agriculture by the Central Institute for Scientific and Technical Documentation, Warszara, Poland, 1960.)

Bautista, F . R., R . H. Thompson, and R . F. Cain. 1961. Changes in amino nitrogen, total soluble nitrogen , and TCA-soluble nitrogen content of beef as influenced by pre-irradiation heating, irradiation level and storage at 34 F. Food Science 26: 15-20.

Bramblett, V. D. , R. L. Hostetler , G. E . Vail, and H. N. Draudt. 1959. Qualities of beef as affected by cooking at very low temperatures for long periods of time. Food Technology 13: 707-711.

Bull, S. 1951. Physical structure of meat , p. 19-25. In, Meat for the table. McGraw-Hill Book Company , Inc. , New York.

Cole, J . W. , C. B. Ramsey, and L . 0 . Odom. 1960 . What effect does fat content have on palatability of broiled ground beef? Tenness ee Farm and Home Science Progress Report 36 , p. 5-7.

Conner, R. T . , and G. J. Straub. 1941. Combined determination of ribo­flavin and thiamin in food products . Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Analytical Edition 13: 385-389.

Cover, S. 1943. Effect of extremely low rates of heat penetration on tendering beef. Food Research 8: 388-394 .

Cover , S. 1959. Scoring for three components of tenderness to characterize differences among beef steaks . Food Research 24:564-573.

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

Cover, S. , and R. L. Hostetler. 1960. Beef tenderness by new methods. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 947.

Cover, S. , B. A. McLaren, and P. B. Pearson. 1944. Retention of the B-vitamins in rare and well-done beef. Journal of Nutrition 27: 363-375.

56

Cover, S., E . M. Dilsaver , R. E. Hays, and W. H. Smith . 1949. Reten­tion of B vitamins after large-scale cooking of meat. II. Roasting by two methods . Journal of American Dietetic Association 25: 949-951.

Cover, S. , 0. D. Butter, and T. C. Cartwright. 1956. The relationship of fatness in yearling steers to juiciness and tenderness of broiled and braised steaks . Journal of Animal Science 15: 464-471.

Cover, S., J . Bannister, and E. Kehlenbrink. 1957 . Effect of four con­ditions of cooking on the eating quality of two cuts of beef. Food Research 22 : 635-647 .

Cover, S., C. T. King , and 0. D. Butler . 1958 . Effect of carcass grades and fatness on tenderness of meat from steers of known history. Texas Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 889.

Cover, S. , S. J. Ritchey, and R . L. Hostetler. 1962a. Tenderness of beef. I. The connective tissue component of tenderness . Journal of Food Science 27:469-475.

Cover, S., S. J . Ritchey, and R . L . Hostetler . 1962b. Tenderness of beef. II. Juiciness and the softness components of tenderness. Journal of Food Science 27:476-482

Cover , S., S. J . Ritchey, and R. L . Hostetler . 1962c. Tenderness of beef. III. The muscle-fiber components of tenderness. Journal of Food Science 27:483-488

Cover, S. , R. L. Hostetler , and S. J . Ritchey . 1962d. Tenderness of beef. IV . Relations of shear force and fiber extensibility to juiciness and six components of tenderness . Journal of Food Science 27:527-536 .

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

57

Dawso n, E . H. 1959. When you cook, p. 495-509. In Alfred Stefferud, ed. Food the yearbook of agriculture, 1959. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D. C.

Dawson , E. H., G. S. Linton , A. M. Harkin , and C. Miller. 1959 . Factors influencing the palatability, vitamin content, and yield of cooked beef. U. S. Department of Agriculture, Home Economics Res earch Report 9 .

Farrer, K. T . H. 1955 . The thermal destruction of vitamin B1 in foods . Advances in Food Research 6: 257-311.

Gaddis, A. M., 0 . G. Hankins , and R . L . Hiner . 1950. Relationships between the am ount and composition of press fluid , palatability. Food Technology 4 : 498-503.

Ginger , B. , and C. E . Weir. 1958. Variation in tenderness within three muscles from beef round. Food Research 23:662-669.

Ginger , I. D., J . P . Wachter, D. M. Doty, and B. S. Schweigert. 1954 . Effect of aging and cooking in the distribution of certain amino acids a nd nitrogen in beef muscle. Food Research 19: 410-416.

Griswold , R . M. 1951. Effect of heat on the nutritive value of protein . Journal of the American Dietetic Association 27: 85-93.

Griswold , R. M. 1955. The effect of different methods of cooking beef round of commer c ial and prime grade: I. Palatability and shear values . Food Res earch 2 0: 160-170 .

Hamm , R . 1960. Biochemistry of meat hydration. Advances in Food R esearch 10: 355-463 .

Hamm , R . , and F . E. Deatherage. 1960 . Changes in hydration , solubility a nd changes of muscle proteins during heating of meat . Food Research 25: 587-610.

Hiner , R . L ., E . E . Anderson, and C. R . Fellers . 1955 . Amount and character of connective tissue as it r elates to tenderness in beef. Food T echnology 9: 80-86 .

Hood , M. P. 1960. Effect of cooking me thod and grade on beef roasts . Journal of the American Dietetic Association 37: 363-365.

Hostetler , R . L. , and S. Cover. 1961. Relationship of extensibility of muscle fibers to tenderness of beef. Food Science 26: 535-540.

58

Husaini , S. A., F. E. Deatherage , and L . E . Kunkle . 1950. Studies on meat. II . Observations on r e la tion of biochemical factors to changes in tenderness . Food Technology 4: 366-369.

Kramlich , W. E., and A. M. Pearson. 1958 . Some preliminary studies on meat flavor . Food Resear ch 23 : 567-5 74.

Krehl , W. A. , and J. J . Barboriak . 1960. Factors affecting the utilizati on of food nutrients by the normal organism, p. 521-523. In RobertS. Harris and Harry von Loes ecker, eds . Nutritional evaluation of food processing. John Wiley a nd Sons , Inc., New York.

Kurtz, G . W. 1959. The chemistry of meat flavor . Proceedings of the Eleventh Research Conference Sponsored by the Research Advisory Council of the American Meat Institute Foundation , Circular 50, p. 95 -96.

Lever ton , R . M., and G. V. Odell. 1958. The nutritive value of cooked meat . Oklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station, Oklahoma State University Miscellaneous Publication MP-49 .

Levy, M. , and R. C. Warner. 1954. Denaturation of bovine plasma a lbumin. Journal of Physica l Chemistry 58: 106-109.

Lowe, B. 1955. Meat and poultry, p . 192-268 . In, Experimental cookery, 4th ed. John Wiley and Sons , Inc . , New York.

Lushbough , C. H. , and B. S. Schweigert. 1960. The nutritive content and the nutr itional value of m eat and meat products, p . 185-212. In American Meat Institute Foundation . The science of meat and m eat products. W. H. Freeman and Company , San Francisco .

Lushbough , C. H., B. S. Heller, E . Weir, a nd B. S. Schweigert. 1962. Thiamine retention in meats after various heat treatments. Journal of the American Dietetic Associa tion 40: 35-38 .

Mayfie ld , H. L., and M. T. Hedrick. 1949 . Thia mine and riboflavin retention in beef during roasting , canning , and corning. Journal of the American Dietetic Associa tion 25: 1024-1027.

Melnick, D., and B. L . Oser . 1949. The influence of heat-processing on the functiona l and nutritiv e properties of protein . Food Technology 3: 57-71 .

Mitchell , H. H., T. S. Hamilton, and J . R. Beadles. 1949. The nutritional effect of heat on food proteins , with particular reference to commercial processing and home cooking. Journal of Nutrition 39:413-425 .

Morgan , A. F . 1960. Effects of home preparation on nutrient content of foods of animal origin, p. 442 -461. In RobertS. Harris and Harry von Loesecker, eds . Nutritional evaluation of food processing . John Wiley and Sons , Inc . , New York .

Morgan , A. F . , and G. E . Kern . 1934. The effect of heat upon the biologica l value of meat protein. Journal of Nutrition 7: 367-379 .

National Live Stock and Meat Board . 1950. The place of meat in good nutrition , p . 25-39. In , Ten lessons on m eat for use in schools , 7th ed . National Live Stock and Meat Board , Department of Home Economics , Chicago.

59

Neurath , J . , J . P . Breenstein , F . W. Putna m , and J . 0 . Erickson. 1944. The chemistry of prote in dena tura tion . Chemical Review 34: 157-265 .

Noble , I. , a nd L . Gomez . 1960. Thia mine and riboflavin in roast beef. Journal of the American Di etetic Assoc iation 36 : 46-48 .

Paul, P ., and L. J . Bratzler . 1955a. Studies on tenderness of beef. II . Varying storage times and conditions . Food Research 20: 626-634 .

Paul, P . , and L. J . Bratzler . 1955b. Studies on tenderness of beef. Ill Size of shear cores: end to end varia tion in the semimembranosus and adductor . Food Res earch 20:635-638 .

Paul, P ., M. L. Morr , L. J . Bra tzle r , and M. A. Ohlson . 1950. Effect of boning on cooking losses and pala tability of beef. Food Technology 4: 348-349 .

Porter, R. W. , L . J . Bratzler , and W. T . Magee . 1962. Yield of cooked edibl e meat from various r etail beef cuts as influenced by carcass weight and carcass grade. Food Technology 16: 86-88.

Ramsbottom, J . M. , and E . J. Strandine . 1948 . Comparative tenderness and identification of muscles in wholes ale beef cuts . Food Research 13: 315 - 330.

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

Rice, E . E . , and J. F. Beuk. 1953. Th e effect of heat upon the nutritive value of protein. Advances in Food Research 4: 233-279 .

Salwin, H. 1954. Biuret method for soluble whey proteins in nonfat dry milk solids. Food Research 19: 235-244 .

60

Schroeder, L . J . , M. Iacobellis, and A. H. Smith . 1961. Influence of heat on the digestability of meat protein . Journal of Nutrition 73: 143-150.

Seegers, W. H., and H. A. Mattill. 1935. The nutritive value of animal tissues in growth, reproduction, and lactation. Journal of Nutrition 10: 271-288 .

Swift, C. E., and M. D. Berman. 1959 . Factors affecting the water r eten­tion of beef. I. Variations in composition and properties among eight muscles . Food Technology 13: 365-370.

Thomas, H. J., and B. Meyer . 1959 . How does cooking affect the vitamin content of beef roasts? Tennessee Farm and Home Science, Progress Report 29, p . 10-11.

Toeph er, E . W. , C. S. Pritchett , and E . M. Hewston. 1955. Boneless beef: raw, cooked , and served. U. S. Department of Agriculture Technical Bulletin 1137 .

Tucker, R. E ., W. F. Hinman , and E . G. Halliday. 1946 . The retention of thiamin and riboflavin in beef cuts dur ing braising , frying , and broiling. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 22: 877-881.

Visse r , R . Y., D. L . Harrison , G. E. Goertz , M. Bunyan , M. M. Skelton, and D. L. Mackintosh. 1960. The effect of degree of doneness on the tenderness and juiciness of beef cooked in the oven and in deep fat. Food Technology 14: 193-198.

Wanderstock, J . J . , and J. I. Mille r . 1948. Quality and palatability of beef as affected by m ethod of feeding a nd carcass grade. Food Research 13: 291-303.

Warner, R . C. , and M. Levy . 1958. Denaturation of bovine plasma a lbumin . II . Isolation of intermediates and mechanism of the reaction at pH 7. American Chemical Soc iety Journal 80: 5735-5744 .

Wellington, G. H. , and J . R. Stouffer . 1959 . Beef marbling--its estima­tion and influence on tenderness and juiciness . Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station , New York State College of Agriculture Bulletin 941.

Wierbicki , E., and F . E. Deatherage. 1958. Determination of water­holding capacity of fresh meats . Journal of Agriculture and Food Chemistry 6: 387-392 .

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

Wood, T. , 1961. The browning of ox-muscle extracts. Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture 12:61-66 .

61

62

APPENDIX

Tabl e 8. Influence of cooking temperature and time on weight loss, press fluid , and shear force in meats cooked rare

~

Cooking Internal Weight of Weight of ~htloss Press Shear time temperature r a w meat cooked meat grams percent fluid force

min . gm. gm. ml. lb .

l-inch Good 400 F 17 138 F 464 346 118 29 9.2 19. 00 350 F 18 137 F 508 413 94 22 9.2 17. 00 300 F 19 138 F 500 428 72 17 10.57 24 . 76

1 1/2-inch Good 400 F 30 136 F 798 590 207 31 6. 03 17.77 350 F 31 135 F 765 630 135 21 9 . 87 15 . 89 300 F 36 137 F 714 570 123 20 12 . 51 14.82

l-inch Choice 400 F 22.5 135 F 547 430 117 24 8.48 22. 10 350 F 28 135 F 539 434 105 22 9.74 22 . 17 300 F 40 136 F 626 467 159 28 9 . 0 19 . 39

Ground beef 400 F 12 140 F 342 221 121 35 0. 0 350 F 15 136 F 342 250 92 27 0. 23 300 F 18 136 F 342 249 93 27 0.17

"' "'

Table 9 . Influence of cooking temperature and time on weight loss, press fluid, and shear force in meats cooked medium done

Cooking Internal Weight of Weight of ~jghtloss Press Shear time temperature raw meat cooked meat grams percent fluid force

min. gm. gm. ml. lb .

l-inch Good 400 F 22 159 F 524 376 148 32 8.2 19.74 350 F 25 160 F 512 383 130 30 10.0 19.85 300 F 38 157 F 511 396 ll8 27 9.9 21. 63

1 1/2-inch Good 400 F 350 F 51 158 F 813 556 300 F

257 36 5.4 23 . 36

l-inch Choice 400 F 33 155 F 449 320 109 32 6.87 17 .49 350 F 33 157 F 509 380 130 30 7.00 18.92 300 F 45 159 F 495 357 138 32 4.70 24.13

Grounct .beef 400 F 16 156 F 342 223 ll9 35 0. 0 350 F 25 157 F 342 197 145 42 0. 0 300 F 26 157 F 342 220 122 36 0. 06

0'> >!>

Table 10. Influence of cooking temperature and time on weight loss, press fluid, and shear force in meats cooked well done

Cooking Internal Weight of Weight of Weight loss Press Shear time temperature raw meat cooked meat grams percent fluid force

min . gm. gm. ml. lb.

l-inch Good 400 F 39 174 F 591 330 262 51 1. 90 24.81 350 F 40 169 F 520 356 164 36 2.00 17.88 300 F 49 170 F 550 331 176 35 4 . 95 18 . 00

1 1/2-inch Good 400 F 350 F 55 172 F 635 416 221 40 1. 50 22.03 300 F

l-inch Choice 400 F 44 170 F 444 275 169 43 3 . 43 19 . 06 350 F 40 168 F 504 288 217 47 2.67 19 . 53 300 F 53 171 F 556 367 189 39 3. 53 26 . 99

Ground beef 400 F 19 174 F 342 178 164 48 0.0 350 F 25 171 F 342 197 145 42 0.13 300 F 37 171 F 342 188 154 45 0. 0

"' "'

Table 11. Influence of cooking temperature and time on soluble protein , thiamine, and moisture in meats cooked rare

Soluble ~rotein Thiamine (dry non-fat basis) Percent moisture Cooked Raw Retention Cooked Raw Retention Cooked Raw Retention

mg . N/gm. percent mg . / 100 gm. percent

l-inch Good 400 F . 1242 . 3271 38 .4 178 . 5604 75 61 71 86 350 F .1251 . 2036 62 .4170 . 5265 80 63 72 87 300 F . 1472 . 3831 38 . 4656 . 5995 78 62 69 89

1 1/2-inch Good 400 F . 0974 . 1950 50 . 4936 . 6431 77 55 66 83 350 F . 1380 . 1975 70 . 4777 . 6663 72 61 70 88 300 F . 0958 . 1899 50 . 5384 . 5831 92 60 68 89

l-inch Choice 400 F . 1093 . 1602 68 .4258 . 5179 85 58 69 84 350 F . 0892 . 1412 63 . 4268 . 4915 86 61 69 89 300 F . 0944 . 1410 67 . 4794 . 5600 86 60 68 88

Ground beef 400 F . 1139 .1998 57 .4474 .6410 70 54 59 91 350 F . 1408 . 2370 59 . 4734 . 5087 93 56 59 96 300 F . 0990 . 1626 61 .5785 . 6386 91 58 61 95

C"l

"'

Table 13. Influence of cooking temperature and time on soluble protein , thiamine, and moisture in meats cooked well done

Soluble ~rotein Thiamine (dry non-fat basis ) Percent moisture Cooked Raw Retention Cooked Raw Retention Cooked Raw Retention

mg. N/ gm . percent mg. /100 gm. percent

l -inch Good 400 F . 0550 . 3768 14 . 2544 . 5307 48 47 72 66 350 F . 0620 . 1675 37 . 3677 .5178 72 56 68 82 300 F . 0464 . 2036 23 . 3203 .4188 77 54 68 79

1 1/2-inch Good 400 F 350 F . 0587 . 2789 21 . 3244 .4492 72 53 70 76 300 F

l-inch Choice 400 F . 0853 . 3589 24 . 3680 . 6094 61 50 69 72 350 F . 0355 . 1873 19 .2585 . 5461 47 43 68 64 300 F . 0355 . 3640 10 . 3706 .5358 69 51 67 77

Ground beef 400 F . 0370 . 1998 19 .2959 . 6410 46 47 59 79 350 F . 0797 .2370 34 . 4126 . 5087 81 50 59 86 300 F . 1124 . 1626 69 . 3777 .6386 59 49 61 81

0> 00

69

HEDONIC SCALE

Name Date

Sample --- Sample ___ Sample ___ Sample ___ Sample

Like Like Like Like Like 9 Extremely Extremely Extremely Extremely Extremely

Like Like Like Like Like 8 Very Much Very Much Very Much Very Much Very Much

Like Like Like Like Like 7 Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately

Like Like Like Like Like 6 Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly Slightly

Neither Like Neither Like Neither Like Neither Like Neither Like 5 Nor Dislike Nor Dislike Nor Dislike Nor Dislike Nor Dislike

Dislike Dislike Dislike Dislike Dislike 4 Slightly Slightly Slightly Sligh tly Slightly

Dislike Dislike Dislike Dislike Dislike 3 Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately Moderately

Dislike Dislike Dislike Dislike Dislike 2 Very Much Very Much Very Much Very Much Very Much

Dislike Dislike Dislike Dislike Dislike 1 Extremely Extremely Extremely Extremely Extremely

Comments Comments Comments Comments Comments

Directions: Completely encircl e the category which best des c ribes your reaction to the s ampl e written a bove the column. Then under Comments give your reasons for rating the sample as you did . (i. e. Flavor too strong , lacks flavor, odor not pleasant , etc.)