Click for next page ( 148


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 147
G. C. SMITH and Z. L. CARPENTER Eating Quality of Meat Animal Products and Their Fat Content HISTORICAL ASPECT The belief that fat deposition enhances the value of meat is not of recent origin, having been suggested or implied in both the Old and New Testaments of the Holy Bible. Adam's second son apparently believed that fat cuts were desirable, since the Book of Genesis (chapter 4, verse 4) records that "Abel brought the fatty cuts of meat from his best lambs and presented them to the Lord" (The Living Bible, 1971~. In the account of the reaction of the father to the prodigal son (Luke, chapter 15, verse 23), the slaves were ordered to "kill the calf we have in the fattening pen" for a celebration feast (The Living Bible, 19711. Included among those who perpetuated the belief that fatness was positively associated with the palatability of cooked meat were several of the more famous animal husbandmen of the eighteenth and twentieth centuries. In 1756 Robert Bakewell set about to improve the Leicester- shire sheep of England. According to Ensminger (1960), "Bakewell gradually transformed the large, heavy-boned, and heavy-framed sheep, that had little or no propensity to fatten quickly, to a shorter-legged, blocky form with finer bone and quick-fattening propensities." Hall (1910) associated marbling with tenderness and postulated that "in- creased tenderness results from a decrease in the elasticity of the con- nective tissue due to the deposition of fat therein." Henry and Morrison (1916) explained that "a fat animal has fat deposited between the bundles of muscle fibers thus separating them, and the lean from such 147

OCR for page 147
148 SMITH AND CARPENTER an animal is more tender than the lean from an animal which has not been fattened." Bull (1916), in his discussion of the reason for fatten- ing market animals, stated that "the main object in fattening is to im- prove the flavor, tenderness, and quality of lean meat by the deposition of fat between the muscular fibers." Armsby (1908) said "experience has shown that the tenderness and palatability of the lean meat are notably greater when it is accompanied by considerable fat." Armsby (1917) also stated that "fattening of ani- mals as a commercial process is a practice based on experience which has shown that tenderness and palatability of the meat are increased thereby, so that the consumer is willing to pay a higher price." Accord- ing to Helser (1929), "a well-marbled piece of meat is usually more tender and juicy than meat deficient in fatness." Morrison (1937) said that "lean meat from a well-fattened animal is better flavored and more juicy and tender than meat deficient in fatness. Storage of fat, which forms the so-called 'marbling' of meat, adds to its tenderness, juiciness, and flavor." Since none of these husbandmen presented substantiating `1ntn their ~tnte~ment~ were nrohahiv assumptions. personal opinions. ~ , ~ ~ - r or conjecture. Some early research was conducted. Gardner and Adams (1926) studied consumer habits and preferences with regard to beef purchases. They concluded (in contrast to Armsby's opinion in 1917) that "con- sumers are not always willing to pay a proportionately higher price for a highly finished carcass" and (in contrast to Bull's opinion in 1916) that "either fatness is not related to the quality of meat or the American people know very little about quality, otherwise the Prime grade would constitute a much greater percentage of the total number of carcasses sold on the market." Willman (1937) studied consumer demand for lamb and reported that "Prime lamb carries excess fat not desired by the consumer and is in less demand than either Choice or Good lamb in the eastern markets." Hammond (1932) found practically no rela- tionship between marbling and tenderness in lamb, yet concluded that "no doubt such a correlation [a positive relationship between marbling and tenderness] does exist with animals of different degrees of fatness." This statement indicates a decided reluctance on Hammond's part to disagree with an idea that had become so firmly entrenched in the minds of most animal husbandmen. Lowe (1932) stated that "the deposition of fat, either intramuscu- larly, intrafasicularly or intracellularly, tends to lessen the toughness of meat." She referred to data collected by Nelson et al. (1930) that docu- mented an 18% to 30% decrease in shear-force values for samples from fat animals in relation to the force required to shear samples from

OCR for page 147
Eating Quality of Meat Animal Products 149 thinly finished animals. Cover et al. ( 1944) noted that "a theory widely held for some time is that the fatter the animal the tenderer its meat will be, but conclusive proof of this theory is lacking." Cover et al. (1956) also said that "it is doubtful that fatness by itself is responsible for a marked increase in tenderness and juiciness. It is disconcerting that something which has appeared so obvious to so many for so long should be so extraordinarily difficult to prove in the laboratory." In summary, most of the early statements associating fatness with palatability were largely unsupported by experimental fact. Statements to the contrary, even those supported by research data, were usually disregarded. Cover et al. (1958) relate that in the early 1930's it was thought that the rib and loin cuts could be relied upon for tenderness if they came from fat animals of beef breeding and from high grading carcasses, if such cuts were not tender after cooking then the belief was that "a poor cook had spoiled good meat." It is the purpose of the present review to briefly survey the literature regarding the palatability attributes of meat and the relationship of fat content to the eating quality of cooked muscle. Regardless of the nutritional excellence and adapt- ability of meat as an item in the diet, meat will be consumed in adequate and increasing quantities only if it appeals to and is accepted by the consumer on the basis of its palatability characteristics (Weir, 1960~. EATING QUALITY The ultimate goal of the meat industry is to place a product on the consumer's table that will result in a high degree of eating satisfaction and that will be available at a reasonable cost. Wismer-Pederson ( 1958) observed that the demand for a meat product depends upon its quality, thus the market for fresh meat will become more and more discrimina- tive with regard to quality attributes. Investigations of quality in meat are complicated from the outset by the lack of a clear definition for the term "quality" (Joubert, 19561. Pearson (1968) suggested that quality is a combination of the attributes flavor, juiciness, texture, tender- ness, and appearance that contribute to the Datability or the desir- ability of the product. Kauffman (1959) noted that the quality factors of pork, lamb, and beef are related in terms of tenderness, flavor, juici- ness, and color. The consumer relates to quality in terms of the tender- ness, juiciness, and flavor of the cooked product (Bray, 1966~. Meat palatability depends upon such qualities as color, odor, havor, juici- ness, tenderness, and texture (Weir, 19601. Pork-quality research conducted at the University of Wisconsin (1963) revealed that the optimal indicators of cooked-pork palatability

OCR for page 147
150 SMITH AND CARPENTER are marbling, color, firmness, and physical structure. Bray (1966), Rust and Topel (1969), and Skelley and Handlin (1971) agree that marbling, color, and firmness are the best visual indicators of quality in pork. Quality at the retail level can probably never be described exactly, since it depends on the palatability preferences of consumers; and not all consumers agree regarding palatability attributes (Smith, 19681. In general, however, a given consumer's acceptance of a cooked meat is determined by his singular or combined responses to the flavor, juiciness, and tenderness of that product (Jeremiah et al., 1970~. F LAVOR Flavor is a complex sensation involving odor, taste, texture, tempera- ture, and pH (Lawrie, 19661. Of these, odor or aroma is most im- portant, because without odor, one or the other of the four primary taste sensations (bitter, sweet, sour, and salty) will predominate. When the effect of odor or aroma sensations is reduced or removed, meat flavors are extremely difficult to distinguish. Crocker (1948) reported that differences in meat flavor are primarily the product of differences in odor. Under ideal circumstances, response to odor is about 10,000 times more sensitive than that to taste (Lawrie, 19661. Thus, while ethyl mercaptan can be detected in air at a concentration of 3 x 10-9 percent, the sensation of bitterness, which is the most acute taste, is detectable from strychnine at a concentration in water of 4 x 1O-5 percent (Lawrie, 19661. Aroma condensates from cooked meat have been shown to contain ammonia, amines, indoles, hydrogen sulfide, and short-chain aliphatic acids; but the relationship of these compounds to specific cooked meat aroma decriptions ("animal," "brothy," "metallic," "sour," "sweet," "nose-filling," and "fatty") has not been established (Weir, 1960~. Meat flavor, like aroma, is very difficult to evaluate and describe. Communication among researchers regarding flavor is effected by use of such description terminology as "bouquet," "serum," "brothiness," "mouthfulness," "aftertaste," "mouth-coating," "animal," "metallic," " astringent, " " sweet, " " sour, " "fl at, " "bl and, " " chickenlike, " and "liver- like" (Bratzler, 1971 ) . Early writers (e.g., Ziegler, 1962, and the Na- tional Live Stock and Meat Board, 19~0) attributed the distinctive flavor of meat to the presence and quantity of nitrogenous extractives such as creatine, creatinine, purines, and pyrimidines. Caul (1957) attributed beef flavor to a combination of cooked blood salts, products of pyrolysis, and saliva. Studies of volatile compounds from cooked meat have suggested that ring compounds (e.g., oxazoline and trithiolan), hydrocarbons, alde- hydes, ketones, alcohols, acids, esters, ethers, lactones, aromatics,

OCR for page 147
Eating Quality of Meat Animal Products 151 sulfur-containing compounds (e.g., mercaptans and sulfides) and nitro- gen-containing compounds (e.g., amines and ammonia) are of im- portance in creating the characteristic flavor of meat (Hornste~n, 1971~. As a result of a series of investigations of beef, pork, lamb, and whale meat, Hornstein et al. (1960, 1963) and Hornstein and Crowe (1960, 1963) concluded that an identical basic meaty aroma is associated with the lean portion of these meats and that species differences in flavor reside in the fat. A recent report by Pearson (1974) citing research conducted by Wenham and associates in New Zealand tends to confirm the previous findings. Hornstein ~ 1971 ~ has concluded that a nonenzymatic, browning-type reaction between reducing sugars and amino acids is largely responsible for development of characteristic meat Havor and that the similarity in amino acid and carbohydrate com- position of beef, pork, and lamb may account for the similarity in flavor of the lean meat from these species. Nevertheless, there are differences in flavor among species (Table 1~. Beef flavor is characterized as mouth-filling, serumlike, and with good bouquet; veal is sweet, sour, or flat; pork flavor is bland, sweet, and chickenlike; and lamb has a livery, predominately animal-like flavor and a greasy mouth-coating effect and aftertaste (Weir, 1960~. There is considerable variability among human subjects in intensity and quality of response to a given flavor or odor stimulus, with some individuals prefernug meat that is essentially bland and others desiring meat that is very intense. It is interesting to note that members of an uninformed panel (Table 1 ) like the flavor of lamb, despite the fact that many con- sumers, when questioned, express disdain for such product. Wasserman and Talley (1968) confirmed that perceived differences in flavor and aroma between meats from different species were largely a result of changes in components in the fatty portions of the sample. Fat may affect flavor in two ways (Hornste~n, 1971~: (a) fatty acids, TABLE 1 Flavor Ratings for Rib or Loin Samples from Five Meat Animal Species a Sensory Panel Comparison Species I II III IV V Goat 5.3 d 4.6 c 6.1 b 6.1 b 6.3 cad Tomb 6.8 b 4.9 c 6.7 b 6.9 b 6.0 d Beef 6.1 c 5.2 c 7.3 b 6.5 b 6.6 a' c Pork 6.1 c 6.0 b 6.3 b 6.8 b 7.0 b Horse 5 9 c, a SOURCE: Smith et al. ( 1974a) . b,c,d' Means in the same column bearing different superscripts diner significantly (p < 0.05).

OCR for page 147
52 SMITH AND CARPENTER on oxidation, can produce carbonyl compounds that are potent flavor contributors, and (b) fat may act as a storage depot for odoriferous compounds that are released on heating. The volatiles released from fat or produced from triglyceride or phospholipid fractions may be re- sponsible for the characteristic differences that are associated with the flavors of beef, pork, and lamb (Hornstein, 1971~. Hornstein and Crowe ~ 1 9 60, 1 9 6 3 ~ reported that octanal, undecanal, hepta-2,4-dienal, and nona-2,4-dienal are derived from heated pork fat, but not from beef fat, while few 2,4-dienals are generated by heating lamb fat. Smith and Carpenter (1970) reported that hard, white subcutaneous fat was associated with high flavor and aroma ratings for lamb cuts, while soft or brownish-colored external fat was associated with un- desirable havor and aroma scores (Table 21. Hofstrand and Jacobson (1960) had previously suggested a relationship between depot fats and the aroma of lamb and mutton broths. Kauffman et al. (1964c) reported that pork carcasses with subcutaneous fat depots containing higher quantities of moisture and unsaturated fatty acids produced cooked pork that had less-favorable palatability characteristics. Depot fats serve either as the source of flavor and aroma precursors or as the storage medium for odoriferous compounds that are volatilized and released from fat during cooking. Although the basic meaty flavor is nonlipid in origin, some quantity of fat is undoubtedly necessary to make beef, for example, taste rich, full, and "beefy" and to assure that flavors are species-specific. As ani- mals increase in age, flavor precursors or odoriferous compounds may be concentrated in the fat depots and intense flavors or odors may result. In the latter case, increased deposition of fat could serve to dilute these precursors or compounds and to make the Havor or aroma less pro- nounced. The role of fat as a flavor or aroma diluent deserves greater study. The amount of fat, on or in the animal and meat, that is necessary to fulfill the appropriate flavor and aroma functions is not presently known. The latter conclusion obtains, despite the endeavors of a large number of investigators to determine the fat content necessary to establish the optimum quality level with respect to tenderness, juiciness, and flavor factors (Simone et al., 19581. Numerous researchers have attempted to relate fatness to flavor desirability and/or intensity in cooked meat. Results of some of these studies are presented in Table 3. In these and subsequent tables of the same kind, we have attempted to categorize relationships from "very low" to "high," knowing full well that other readers, searching the same literature, may well have interpreted these data in another manner and could well have assigned a different rank to the associations described. Nevertheless, these data suggest that fat

OCR for page 147
Eating Quality of Meat Animal Products 153 TABLE 2 Relationship of Subcutaneous Fat Cover Characteristics and USDA Quality Indicators to Flavor and Aroma Scores a Very Very Very Very High Low High Low Aroma Aroma Flavor Flavor Trait Score (%)b Score (%)c Score (%)4 Score (%)e Character of sub cutaneous fat Firmness Hard 60.0 25.0 60.0 30.0 Medium 30.0 15.0 30.0 20.0 Soft 10.0 30.0 5.0 25.0 Very soft 0.0 30.0 5.0 25.0 Color White 65.0 30.0 55.0 30.0 Cream 25.0 15.0 35.0 25.0 Tan 10.0 25.0 10.0 20.0 Light brown 0.0 30.0 0.0 25.0 USDA quality indi cator scores g Flank firmness score TFF 10.0 5.0 5.0 15.0 MFF 15.0 5.0 20.0 10.0 TMF 20.0 10.0 15.0 15.0 SF 30.0 20.0 20.0 30.0 TSF 15.0 30.0 30.0 15.0 STS 10.0 30.0 10.0 15.0 a SOURCE: Smith and Carpenter ( 1970) . b The 20 samples with the highest hedonic ratings for aroma of subcutaneous fat. c The 20 samples with the lowest hedonic ratings for aroma of subcutaneous fat. d The 20 samples with the highest hedonic ratings for flavor of primal cuts. e The 20 samples with the lowest hedonic ratings for flavor of primal cuts. t Subjective ratings completed prior to stratification via aroma or flavor scores. g USDA scores assigned prior to stratification via aroma or flavor scores. ness has a low relationship to flavor desirability in lamb and a low-to- moderate relationship to desirability of flavor in both pork and beef. JUICINESS Lawrie (1966) reported that differences in pH, water-holding capacity, fatness, and firmness were directly related to juiciness scores for cooked meats. Kauffman et al. (1964a) and Carpenter et al. (1965d) gen- erally supported such relationships for pork muscle; Smith and Car- penter (1970) reported that differences in moisture, fat, and pH were related to juiciness in lamb muscle; Berry (1972) found that differ

OCR for page 147
154 so o Cal V) _I - .9= U. Ct _( ~ q, ~ m Ct CD ~ U) ,~ O Ct ~0 ~ Cd an ~ Ad q) O 5-, ~ g .= O ~ V C) ~ Ce 5-, U] a, CQ em m C) PA Cal _' O 00 (~] ~4 Cry O _I O ~ ~ _/ ~ O ~ 00 -~ {~) ~4 ~ ad. O ~ ~^ ~ ~1 1 1 1 1 ~`_ ~ oo ~ CO ~ o O ^ ~ _, ~i 0N =\ ~^ ~ _I ~ X ~ .0 ~ O Cd 50 ~ 4) ~> ._ Ct k 1 1 1~ 1 o ~_ Ct a, "d ~ o ._ _ o ~q Crq o ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ U. ~ oo Ct o Ct s~ o

OCR for page 147
~oo ~ Do ~ an 1 ~ ~ ~ of ~ 1 ~ - ~ ~ 1 -, _1 oo ~ o c~) _I~ to 1 1 ~1 1 -^ 1 1 ~11 cS,^ ~- ~ ,= c,3 3 ~=0 o ~o o ~o o ~o ao ~ ~ ~ ~ ._ ~ ~ ~:> 4_ ~ ~ o _ c ~ ~ 3 3 :^ ~ ~ o 3 3 ~ t4 ~C~ ~ _ U' ~ ~a J _. 1 C-) S'~ Ct .0 ~ ~ _l ._ ~ ~ ~4 ~ .= S ~ C: ~ O ._ _ t0 Ct ~ O - C) u, co o ~ S Ct O a, ._ U) C.} ~ S a, ~ C~ O ~ U. Ct t5 3 - C, C) 3 ~o Cd t~ : o 3 ~ o - ~ C~ o ." - _ Ct C~ ~ ._ stO U) s U, C5 - .~ - 3 C> ~D .= su, o ._ Ct s _ o C~ o - ._ C) U' C) oo C, ~D . ~ :^ ~ ,~ _ Ct ~ au .= q) c: CO ,<3 C: - - C) ~ C,: - C) s, C~ C) ~ q) 3 4, cd :~ :;s D~ O o {~: ~ _ >, O C, ~,._ a~ ~3 O O ~C) O O cn ~ C\: o ~ S S 3S ~ ~ ;~ O _ Ct C,, C) _ SO ,D - .C) Ct ~ Ce C.~ ~ ~ 3o ~cn _,C~ - Ct S~ oo Ct . ~ _ ~ ~; ca O ~O ~ eD~ Ce S.= ~ ~, O t00 Ce _~ C, Ct o S~ o o O :~` - ,C' - C) _ U] ~ .U3 ~C U' ~ O aJ u, - (L> C, O Ct S _ CO ,` ~ CO O -t C ~ O Cq Cq U, C) Ct U, - Ct CO o :^ .O ;> o C~ o ~0 C) ._ 3 cq U) ~3 ~ C~ .O . s U] ~ c,5 o o - o CJ s .-t ~ CO U, CO (,: 3 ~ ._ : ~ CO Ct o - - o .> o ') c ._ ._ ~5 - ._ o Cd 155

OCR for page 147
156 SMITH AND CARPENTER ences in fat, moisture, and water-holding capacity were associated with the observed variability in beef juiciness. In that it affects the appearance of the meat before cooking, its be- havior during cooking, and juiciness on mastication, the water-holding capacity of meat is an attribute of obvious importance (Lawrie, 1966~. Diminution of water-holding capacity is manifested by exudation of fluid known as "weep" or "purge" in uncooked meat that has not been frozen, as "drip" in thawed (previously frozen) uncooked meat and as "shrink" or~"cooking loss" in cooked meat, where it is derived from both aqueous and fatty sources (Lawrie, 19661. When muscle fibers are cut perpendicular to their longitudinal axis they vary in exudation from a complete absence of exudate to an extremely large quantity of exudat- ing juice (Briskey and Kauffman, 1971~. The presence of surface juice is the result of changes in the water-holding capacities of muscle pro- teins and is closely associated with pH a low pH is extremely detri- mental to water-binding if storage temperatures are above 20 C (Briskey and Kauffman, 1971~. Firmness in meat is associated with a rigid structure, high juice retention, and limited losses of fluid during processing or cooking; however, the presence of intramuscular fat deposits can increase apparent firmness without actually influencing fluid retention (Carpenter, 1962 ~ . Weir (1960) reported that juiciness is comprised of the combined effects of initial fluid release and the sustained juiciness resulting from the stimulating effect of fat on salivary how. Descriptions of differences in juiciness among samples of cooked meat (Bratzler, 1971 ~ are related in terms of (a) initial fluid release (the impression of wetness per- ceived during the first chews, produced by the rapid release of meat fluids); and (b) sustained juiciness (the sensation of juiciness perceived during continued chewing, created by the release of serum and due, in , part, to the stimulating effect of fat on salivary flow). Initial fluid re- lease from meat is undoubtedly affected by degree of doneness and method of cooking, while sustained juiciness is related to intramuscular fat content (Pearson, 19661. One of the most important factors influencing juiciness of meat (especially initial fluid release) is the cooking procedure. Methods of cookery which result in the greatest retention of meat fluid (water or lipid) and hence in the lowest cooking losses are associated with en- hanced juiciness of the final product (Smith, 19721. Beef cooked "rare" is juicier than beef cooked "well-done"; and pork, lamb, and veal, which are ordinarily cooked "well-done," are less juicy than beef (Weir, 19601. Cooking losses from good-quality meat tend to be lower than those from poor-quality meat (Sable and Bratzler, 1957~. Although high-quality meats lose more fat during cooking (which is expected

OCR for page 147
Eating Quality of Meat Animal Products 157 because of their greater fat content), they lose less moisture, possibly because some structural change (caused by the presence of marbling) enhances the water-holding capacity (Sable and Bratzler, 19571. Some of the shrinkage loss during cooking is due to the loss of fluid fat, since high temperatures will melt fat, and some is due to the method, time, and temperature of cooking, since the high temperatures involved will cause protein denaturation, considerable lowering of water-holding capacity, and subsequent loss of fluid or vaporous moisture (Lawrie, 1966~. An increase in the degree of shrinkage during cooking is directly correlated with a loss of juiciness upon consumption. Since sustained juiciness during chewing leaves a more lasting impres- sion than does the initial release of fluid, it is quite understandable that most studies of factors affecting meat juiciness have shown a closer correlation between juiciness scores and fat content of the meat than between juiciness scores and amount of press fluid (as a measure of water-holding capacity) from the meat (Bratzler, 19711. Tenderness and juiciness are closely related; the more tender the meat, the more quickly the juices are released by chewing and the more juicy the meat appears. For tough meat, however, the juiciness is greater and more uniform if the release of fluid and fat is slow (Weir, 1960~. Since marbling or intramuscular fat would increase the sensation of sustained juiciness in less-tender meat, its association with juiciness is apparent. Bray (1964) reported that beef that is practically devoid of marbling is less palatable than beef with some marbling. Those fats that are present in and around the muscle fiber serve to lubricate the fibers and so make for a juicier cooked product (Carpenter, 1962~. A moderate quantity of marbling is adequate to lubricate the muscle fibers and thus provide for a juicy and flavorful cooked product (Briskey and Kauff- man, 1971 ~ . Too little marbling may be responsible for a dry, flavorless product, whereas excess marbling fails to contribute proportionate im- provement to eating satisfaction. If marbling enhances juiciness by serv- ing as a lubricant around muscle bundles, then it is important that marbling be uniformly and finely dispersed throughout the muscle (Briskey and Kauffman, 1971 ). A number of researchers have related fatness to the juiciness of cooked meat. Results of some of these studies are presented in Table 4. The consensus from these data suggests that fatness has a moderate relationship to juiciness in lamb, a moderate-to-high relationship to juiciness in pork, and a low-to-moderate relationship to juiciness in beef. TENDERNESS Consumer studies have shown that tenderness is the most important palatability factor in acceptance of beef and probably of other meats,

OCR for page 147
172 SMITH AND CARPENTER fat content) as a standard, over which the meat product is considered "acceptable" in palatability and under which the product is identified as "unacceptable," would seem to be appropriate for use in quality assess- ments or for grading purposes and may be more reasonable than at- tempting to reflect degrees of acceptability in response to changes in degrees of fatness. Although some consumers may expect USDA grades to identify meat products according to their nutritional adequacy or excel- lence, research cited here reveals that selection of pork loins to maximize crude protein content would identify and segment cuts that are less than satisfactory in appearance and inferior in eating quality. RE F E RE N C E S 1. Abraham, H. C. 1967. Factors associated with beef carcass curability. M.S. Thesis. Texas A&M University, College Station. 2. Allen, D. M. 1968. Description of ideal carcasses. Proc. Recip. Meat Conf. 21:284. 3. Alsmeyer, R. H., A. Z. Palmer, M. Kroger, and W. G. Kirk. 1959. The relative significance of factors influencing and/or associated with beef tenderness. Proc. 11th Res. Conf. Am. Meat Inst. Found. Circ. 50:85. 4. Arganosa, V. G., I. T. Omtvedt, and L. Walters. 1969. Phenotypic and genetic parameters of some carcass traits in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 28:168. 5. Armsby, H. P. 1908. Feeding for meat production. USDA Burl Anim. Ind. Bull. 108. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 6. Armsby, H. P. 1917. The Nutrition of Farm Animals. The Macmillan Com- pany, New York. 7. Backus, W. R., I. W. Cole, C. B. Ramsey, and C. S. Hobbs. 1967. Minimum fatness for efficient beef production. J. Anim. Sci. 26:209. (A) 8. Barbella, N. G., O. G. Hankins, and L. M. Alexander. 1936. The influence of retarded growth in lambs on flavor and other characteristics of the meat. Proc. Am. Soc. Anim. Prod., p. 293. 9. Barbella, N. G., B. Rannor, and T. G. Johnson. 1939. Relationship of flavor and juiciness of beef to fatness and other factors. Proc. Am. Soc. Anim. Prod., p. 320. 10. Bass, PI. T. 1938. The effect of degree of fatness and length of storage in cooler on the tenderness of meat. M.S. Thesis. Texas A&M University, College Station. 11. Batcher, O. M., and E. H. Dawson. 1960. Consumer quality of selected muscles of raw and cooked pork. Food Technol. 14:69. 12. Batcher, O. M., E. H. Dawson, M. R. Pointer, and G. L. Gilpin. 1962a. Quality of raw and cooked lamb meat as related to fatness and age of animal. Food Technol. 16: 102. 13. Batcher, O. M., E. H. Dawson, G. L. Gilpin, and J. M. Eisen. 1962b. Quality and physical composition of various cuts of raw and cooked pork. Food Technol. 16:104. 14. Bell, C. L. 1939. The effect of degree of fatness on the tenderness of meat. M.S. Thesis. Texas A&M University, College Station.

OCR for page 147
Eating Quality of Meat Animal Products 173 15. Berry, B. W. 1972. Characteristics of bovine muscle, cartilage and bone as influenced by physiological maturity. Ph.D. Dissertation. Texas A&M Uni- versity, College Station. 16. Berry, B. W., G. C. Smith, J. V. Spencer, and G. H. Kroening. 1971. Effects of freezing method, length of frozen storage and cookery from the thawed or frozen state on palatability characteristics of pork. J. Anim. Sci. 32:636. 17. Berry, B. W., G. C. Smith, and Z. L. Carpenter. 1974a. Beef carcass maturity indicators and palatability attributes. J. Anim. Sci. 38:507. 18. Berry, B. W., G. C. Smith, and Z. L. Carpenter. 1974b. Relationships of certain muscle, cartilage and bone traits to tenderness of the beef longis- simus. J. Food Sci. 39:819. 19. Black, W. PI., K. F. Warner, and C. V. Wilson. 1931. Beef production and quality as affected by grade of steer and feeding grain supplement on grass. USDA Tech. Bull. 217. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 20. Black, W. H., R. L. Hiner, L. B. Burk, L. M. Alexander, and C. V. Wilson. 1940. Beef production and quality as affected by method of feeding sup- plements to steers on grass in the Appalachian Region. USDA Tech. Bull. 717. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. 21. Blakeslee, L. H., and J. I. Miller. 1945. Shear tenderness tests on beef short loins. J. Anim. Sci. 4:517. 22. Blumer, T. N. 1963. Relationship of marbling to the palatability of beef. J. Anim. Sci. 22:771. 23. Bramblett, V. D., and G. E. Vail. 1964. Further studies on the qualities of beef as affected by cooking at very low temperatures for long periods. Food Technol. 18:245. 24. Branaman, G. A., O. G. Hankins, and L. M. Alexander. 1936. The relation of degree of finish in cattle to production and meat Favors. Proc. Am. Soc. Anim. Prod., p. 295. 25. Bratzler, L. J. 1971. Palatability factors and evaluations. In The Science of Meat and Meat Products. W. H. Freeman and Company. San Francisco, Calif. 26. Bray, R. W. 1964. A study of beef carcass grading criteria. Proc. Recip. Meat Conf. 17:9. 27. Bray, R. W. 1966. Pork quality definition, characteristics and significance. J. Anim. Sci. 25:839. 28. Briskey, E. J., and R. G. Kauffman. 1971. Quality characteristics of muscle as a food. In The Science of Meat and Meat Products. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, Calif. 29. Brown, C. J., J. D. Bartee, and P. K. Lewis. 1962. Relationships among per- formance records, carcass cut-out data, and eating quality of bulls and steers. Ark. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 655. 30. Bull, S. 1916. The Principles of Feeding Farm Animals. The Macmillan Company, New York. 31. Bull, S., F. C. Olson, and J. H. Longwell. 1930. Effects of sex, length of feeding period and a ration of ear-corn silage on the quality of baby beef. Ill. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 355. 32. Bull, S. L., R. R. Snapp, and H. P. Rusk. 1941. Effect of pasture on grade of beef. Ill. Agric. Exp Stn. Bull. 475. 33. Carpenter, Z. L. 1962. The histological and physical characteristics of pork

OCR for page 147
174 SMITH AND CARPENTER muscle and their relationship to quality. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of Wisconsin, Madison. 34. Carpenter, Z. L., R. G. Kauffman, R. W. Bray, E. J. Briskey, and K. G. Weckel. 1963. Factors influencing quality in pork. A. Histological obser- vations. J. Food Sci. 28:467. 35. Carpenter, Z. L., G. T. King, F. A. Orts, and N. L. Cunningham. 1964. Factors influencing retail carcass value of lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 23:741. 36. Carpenter, Z. L., and G. T. King. 1965a. Cooking method, marbling, and color as related to tenderness of lamb. J. Anim. Sci. 24:291. (A) 37. Carpenter, Z. L., and G. T. King. 1965b. Factors influencing quality of lamb carcasses. J. Anim. Sci. 24:861. (A) 38. Carpenter, %. L., and G. T. King. 1965c. Tenderness of lamb rib chops. Food Technol. 19: 102. 39. Carpenter, Z. L., R. G. Kauffman, R. W. Bray, and K. G. Weckel. 1965d. Interrelationships of muscle color and other pork quality traits. Food Technol. 19:1421. 40. Carpenter, Z. L., H. C. Abraham, and G. T. King. 1968. Tenderness and cooking loss of beef and pork. 1. Relative effects of microwave cooking, deepfat frying\and oven-broiling. J. Am. Dietet. Assoc. 53:353. 41. Carpenter, Z. L., G. C. Smith, and O. D. Butler. 1972a. Assessment of beef tenderness with the Armour Tenderometer. J. Food Sci. 37: 126. 42. Carpenter, Z. L., G. C. Smith, and W. H. Marshall. 1972b. Analysis of ground beef studies. Final Report to the Continental Can Company, Inc. Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn., College Station. 43. Caul, J. F. 1957. Study on development of beef flavor in U.S. Choice and U.S. Commercial cuts of sirloin. In Chemistry of Natural Food Flavors. Quartermaster Food and Container Institute. Chicago, Ill. 44. Cole, J. W., and M. B. Badenhop. 1958. What do consumers prefer in steaks? Tenn. Farm Home Sci. Prog. Rep. No. 25. Tenn. Agric. Exp. Stn., Knoxville. 45. Cole, J. W., C. B. Ramsey, and L. O. Odom. 1960a. What effect does fat content have on palatability of broiled ground beef? Tenn. Farm Home Sci. Prog. Rep. No. 36. Tenn. Agric. Exp. Stn., Knoxville. 46. Cole, J. W., W. R. Backus, and L. E. Orme. 1960b. Specific gravity as an objective measure of beef eating quality. I. Anim. Sci. 19:167. 47. Cole, J. W., C. B. Ramsey, W. C. Huff, C. S. Hobbs, and R. S. Temple. 1966. Effects of three controlled levels of fatness on production, carcass composition, quality, and organoleptic qualities of beef steers. J. Anim. Sci. 25:255. (A) 48. Consumer Protection Report. 1973. U.S. Fat, Fatter, Fattest. Center for Study of Responsive Law Ralph Nader, Trustee. Washington, D.C. Vol. 2, No. 4, p. 2. 49. Cover, S. 1937. The effect of temperature and time of cooking on the tenderness of roasts. Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 542. 50. Cover, S., O. D. Butler, and T. C. Cartwright. 1956. The relationship of fat- ness in yearling steers to juiciness and tenderness of broiled and braised steaks. J. Anim. Sci. 15:464. (A) 51. Cover, S., and R. L. Hostetler. 1960. An examination of some theories about beef tenderness by using new methods. Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 947. 52. Cover, S., G. T. King, and O. D. Butler. 1958. Effect of carcass grades and

OCR for page 147
Eating Quality of Meat Animal Products 175 fatness on tenderness of meat from steers of known history. Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 889. 53. Cover, S., A. K. Mackey, C. E. Murphey, J. C. Miller, H. T. Bass, C. L. Bell, and C. Hamalainen. 1944. Effects of fatness on tenderness of lamb. Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 661. 54. Cracker, E. C. 1948. Flavor of meat. Food Res. 13: 179. 55. Cross, H. R. 1972. The separation, partial characterization and role of col- lagen and elastin in bovine muscle tenderness. Ph.D. Dissertation. Texas A&M University, College Station. 56. Cross, H. R., G. C. Smith, and Z. L. Carpenter. 1972. Palatability of indi- vidual muscles from ovine leg steaks as related to chemical and histolog- ical traits. J. Food Sci. 37:282. 57. Cross, H. R., Z. L. Carpenter, and G. C. Smith. 1973. Effects of intra- muscular collagen and elastin on bovine muscle tenderness. I. Food Sci. 38:998. 58. Davis, G. W. 1974. Quality characteristics, compositional analysis and palatability attributes of selected muscles from pork loins and hams. M.S. Thesis. Texas A&M University, College Station. 59. Davis, G. W., G. C. Smith, Z. L. Carpenter, and H. R. Cross. 1975. Relation- ship of quality indicator to palatability attributes of pork loins. J. Anim. Sci. 41:1305. 60. Doty, D. M., and J. C. Pierce. 1961. Beef muscle characteristics as related to carcass grade, carcass weight, and degree of aging. USDA Tech. Bull. 1231. 61. Dryden, F. D., and J. A. Marchello. 1970. Influence of total lipid and fatty acid composition upon the palatability of three bovine muscles. J. Anim. Sci. 31:36. 62. Dunsing, M. 1959a. Visual and eating preferences of consumer household panel for beef from animals of different age. Food Technol. 13:332. 63. Dunsing, M. l959b. Visual and eating preferences of consumer household panel for beef from Brahman-Hereford crossbreds and from Herefords. Food Technol. 13 :451. 64. Ensminger, M. E. 1960. History and development of the sheep and goat in- dustry. In Animal Science. The Interstate Printers and Publishers, Inc. Danville, Ill. 65. Field, R. A., G. E. Nelms, and C. O. Schoonover. 1966. Effects of age, marbling and sex on palatability of beef. J. Anim. Sci. 25:360. 66. Forrest, J. C. 1962. Relationship of subjective indices of quality in lamb carcasses of yearling cattle. Mo. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 314. Kansas State University, Manhattan. 67. Foster, M. T., and J. T. Miller. 1929. The effects of management and sex on carcasses of yearling catttle. Mo. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 314. 68. Gardner, K. B., and L. A. Adams. 1926. Consumer habits and preferences in the purchase and consumption of meat. USDA Bull. No. 1443. 69. Gilpin, G. L., O. M. Batcher, and P. A. Deary. 1965. Influence of mar- bling and final internal temperature on quality characteristics of broiled rib and eye of round steaks. Food Technol. 19:834. 70. Goll, D. E., A. G. Carlin, L. P. Anderson, E. A. Kline, and E. A. Walter. 1965. Effect of marbling and maturity on beef muscle characteristics. II.

OCR for page 147
176 SMITH AND CARPENTER Physical, chemical, and sensory evaluation of steaks. Food Technol. 19: 845. 71. Hall, L. D. 1910. Market classes and grades of meat. Ill. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 147. 72. Hammond, J. 1932. Growth and development of mutton qualities in sheep. Oliver and Boyd Publishing Company. London, England. 73. Hankins, O. G. 1945. Quality in meat and meat products. Ind. Eng. Chem. 37:220. 74. Hankins, O. G., and N. R. Ellis. 1939. Fat in relation to quantity and quality factors of meat animal carcasses. Proc. Am. Soc. Anim. Prod., p. 314. 75. Barrington, G., and A. M. Pearson. 1962. Chew count as a measure of tenderness in pork loins with various degrees of marbling. J. Food Sci. 27:106. 76. Harris, D. L., P. P. Graham, R. F. Kelly, and M. E. Juillerat. 1965. An appraisal of beef characteristics that aid in predicting acceptability. J. Anim. Sci. 24: 862. (A) 77. Henry, W. A., and F. B. Morrison. 1916. Feeds and Feeding. Henry-Morri- son Publishing Company, Madison, Wisconsin. 78. Henry, W. E., L. J. Bratzler, and R. W. Luecke. 1963. Physical and chemical relationship of pork carcass. J. Anim. Sci. 22:613. 79. Helser, M. D. 1929. Farm Meats. The Macmillan Company, New York. 80. Hiner, R. L. 1956. Visual evidence of beef quality as associated with eating desirability. Proc. Recip. Meat Conf. 9:20. 81. Hiner, R. L., J. W. Thornton, and R. H. Alsmeyer. 1965. Palatability and quantity of pork as influenced by breed and fatness. J. Food Sci. 30:550. 82. Hirzel, R. 1939. Factors affecting quality in mutton and beef with special reference to the proportion of muscle, fat and bone. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Sci. Anim. Ind. 12:379. 83. Hofstrand, J., and M. Jacobson. 1960. The role of fat in the Favor of lamb and mutton as tested with depot fats. Food Res. 25:706. 84. Hornstein, I. 1971. Chemistry of meat flavor. in The Science of Meat and Meat Products. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, Calif. 85. Hornstein, I., and P. F. Crowe. 1960. Flavor studies on beef and pork. J. Agric. Food Chem. 8:494. 86. Hornstein, I., P. F. Crowe, and W. L. Sulzbacher. 1960. Constituents of meat flavor: beef. J. Agric. Food Chem. 8:65. 87. Hornstein, I., and P. F. Crowe. 1963. Meat flavor: lamb. J. Agric. Food Chem. 11:147. 88. Hornstein, I., P. F. Crowe, and W. L. Sulzbacher. 1963. Flavor of beef and whale meat. Nature 199:1252. 89. Hostetler, E. H., J. E. Foster, and O. G. Hankins. 1936. Production and quality of meat from native and grade yearling cattle. N.C. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 307. 90. Hostetler, R. L., W. A. Landmann, B. A. Link, and H. A. Fitzhugh, Jr. 1970. Influence of carcass position during rigor mortis on tenderness of beef muscles: comparison of two treatments. J. Anim. Sci. 31:47. 91. Howard, R. D., and M. D. Judge. 1968. Comparison of sarcomere length to other predictors of beef tenderness. J. Food Sci. 33:456. 92. Huffman, D. L. 1974. An evaluation of the tenderometer for measuring beef tenderness. J. Anim. Sci. 38:287.

OCR for page 147
Eating Quality of Meat Animal Products 177 93. Husaini, S. A., F. E. Deatherage, L. E. Kunkle, and H. N. Draudt. 1950a. Studies on meat. I. The biochemistry of beef as related to tenderness. Food Technol. 4:313. 94. Husaini, S. A., F. E. Deatherage, and L. E. Kunkle. 1950b. Studies on meat. II. Observations on relation of biochemical factors to changes in tender- ness. Food Technol. 4:366. 95. Jensen, P., H. B. Craig, and O. W. Robison. 1967. Phenotypic and genetic associations among carcass traits in swine. J. Anim. Sci. 26:1252. 96. Jeremiah, L. E., Z. L. Carpenter, G. C. Smith, and O. D. Butler. 1970. Beef quality. I. Marbling as an indicator of palatability. Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn. Rep. No. 22. 97. Jeremiah, L. E., G. C. Smith, and Z. L. Carpenter. 1971a. Palatability of individual muscles from ovine leg steaks as related to chronological age and marbling. J. Food Sci. 36:45. 98. Jeremiah, L. E., J. O. Reagan, G. C. Smith, and Z. L. Carpenter. 1971b. Ovine yield grades. I. Retail case-life. J. Anim. Sci. 33:759. 99. Jeremiah, L. E., Z. L. Carpenter, and G. C. Smith. 1972a. Beef color as related to consumer acceptance and palatability. J. Food Sci. 37:476. 100. Jeremiah, L. E., G. C. Smith, and Z. L. Carpenter. 1972b. Ovine yield grades. II. Palatability attributes within various quality grades. J. Anim. Sci. 34:196. 101. Joubert, D. M. 1956. An analysis of factors influencing post-natal growth and development of the muscle fiber. J. Agric. Sci. 47:59. 102. Judge, M. D., V. R. Cahill, L. E. Kunkle, and F. E. Deatherage. 1960. Pork quality. II. Physical, chemical and organoleptical relationships in fresh pork. J. Anim. Sci. 19:145. 103. Juhn, H. 1972. Use of non-meat protein additives in the manufacture of frankfurters. M.S. Thesis. Texas A&M University, College Station. 104. Kauffman, R. G. 1959. Techniques of measuring some quality characteristics of pork. Proc. Recip. Meat Conf. 12: 154. 105. Kauffman, R. G. 1960. Pork marbling. Proc. Recip. Meat Conf. 13:31. 106. Kauffman, R. G., R. W. Bray, and E. J. Briskey. 1958. The amounts of feathering and overflow as related to the marbling content of pork car- casses. J. Anim. Sci. 17:1149 (A). 107. Kauffman, R. G., R. W. Bray, and M. A. Schaars. 1959. People buy lean pork, but like marbled pork better. Wis. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 538. 108. Kauffman, R. G., R. W. Bray, and M. A. Schaars. 1961. Price vs. marbling in the purchase of pork chops. Food Technol. 15:22. 109. Kauffman, R. G., Z. L. Carpenter, R. W. Bray, and W. G. Hoekstra. 1964a. Biochemical properties of pork and their relationship to quality. I. pH of chilled, aged and cooked muscle tissue. J. Food Sci. 29 :65. 110. Kauffman, R. G., Z. L. Carpenter, R. W. Bray, and W. G. Hoekstra. 1964b. Biochemical properties of pork and their relationship to quality. II. Intra- muscular fat. J. Food Sci. 29:70. 111. Kauffman, R. G., Z. L. Carpenter, R. W. Bray, and W. G. Hoekstra. 1964c. Biochemical properties of pork and their relationship to quality. III. De- gree of saturation and moisture content of subcutaneous fat. J. Food Sci. 29:75. 112. Keese, W. C., D. L. Handlin, G. C. Skelley, and R. F. Wheeler. 1964. Effect of feed restriction on finishing swine. J. Anim. Sci. 23:880. (A)

OCR for page 147
178 SMITH AND CARPENTER 113. Kidwell, J. T., J. E. Hunter, D. R. Tunan, J. E. Harper, C. E. Shelby' and R. J. Clark. 1959. Relation of production factors to conformation scores and body measurements, associations among production factors and the relation of carcass grade and fatness to consumer preferences in yearling steers. J. Anim. Sci. 18:894. 114. Kieffer, N. M., R. L. Henrickson, D. Chambers, and D. F. Stephens. 1958. The influence of sire upon some carcass characteristics of Angus steers and heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 17:1137. (A) 115. King, G. T. 1958. Beef acceptability as rated by a panel of families and the Warner-Bratzler shear, using loin steaks and chuck roasts from cattle of known history. Ph.D. Dissertation. Texas A&M University, College Station. 116. Klay, R. F., G. C. Smith, and M. G. Weller. 1969. Effect of restricted feed intake on performance, carcass measurements, flavor and tenderness of Hampshire and Palouse swine. J. Anim. Sci. 29:417. 117. Kropf, D. H., and R. L. Graf. 1959. Interrelationships of subjective, chemical and sensory evaluation of beef quality. Food Technol. 13:492. 118. Lane, J. P., and L. E. Walters. 1958. Acceptability studies in beef. Okla. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. P-305. 119. Lawrie, R. A. 1966. The eating quality of meat. in Meat Science. Pergamon Press, London, England. 120. Legg, W. E., G. T. King, Z. L. Carpenter, and N. L. Cunningham. 1965. Palatability of bull, heifer and steer carcasses. J. Anim. Sci. 24:292. (A) 121. Lewis, R. L., R. W. Bray, and V. Brungardt. 1964. The relationship of live animal performance and carcass traits. University of Wisconsin. (Unpub- lished. ) 122. Loeffel, W. J. 1929. Page 27 in Nebraska State Report. University of Nebraska, Lincoln. 123. Loeffel, W. J. 1930. Page 26 in Nebraska State Report. University of Nebraska, Lincoln. 124. Lopez, A. L. 1969. Quality attributes of porcine musculature as related to structural muscle components, carcass traits and certain production factors. M.S. Thesis. Texas A&M University, College Station. 125. Lowe, B. 1932. Experimental Cookery. John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York. 126. Lowe, B., and J. Kastelic. 1961. Organoleptic, chemical, physical and microscopic characteristics of muscles in eight beef carcasses, differing in age of animal, carcass grade and extent of cooking. Iowa State Univ. Agric. Home Econ. Exp. Stn. Res. Bull. 495. 127. Mackintosh, D. L., and J. L. Hall. 1936. Fat as a factor in palatability of beef. Kans. Acad. Sci. Trans. 39:53. 128. Marion, P. T., S. Cover, O. D. Butler, and J. H. Jones. 1948. Rate of gain and tenderness of beef. Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn. Rep. 1125. 129. Marsh, B. B., and N. G. Leet. 1966. Studies in meat tenderness. 3. The effects of cold shortening on tenderness. J. Food Sci. 31:450. 130. McBee, J. L., Jr., and J. A. Wiles. 1967. Influence of marbling and carcass grade on the physical and chemical characteristics of beef. J. Anim. Sci. 26:701. 131. Melton, C., M. Dikeman, H. J. Tuma, and R. R. Schalles. 1974. Histological

OCR for page 147
Eating Quality of Meat Animal Products 179 relationship of muscle biopsies to bovine meat quality and carcass com- position. J. Anim. Sci. 38:24. 132. Morrison, F. B. 1937. Feeds and Feeding. The Morrison Publishing Com pany, Ithaca, New York. 133. Murphey, C. E., A. K. Mackey, J. C. Miller, and S. Cover. 1942. The effect of degree of fatness on tenderness of lamb. J. Anim. Sci. 1:82. (A) 134. Murphy, M. O., and A. F. Carlin. 196 l . Relation of marbling, cooking yield and eating quality of pork chops to backfat thickness on hog car- casses. Food Technol. 15 :57. 135. National Live Stock and Meat Board. 1950. Ten Lessons On Meat For Use in Schools. National Live Stock and Meat Board, Chicago, Ill. 136. Naumann, H. D., V. J. Rhodes, and J. D. yolk. 1960. Sensory attributes of pork differing in marbling and firmness. J. Anim. Sci. 19: 1240. 137. Nelson, P. M., B. Lowe, and H. D. Helser. 1930. Influence of the animal's age upon the quality and palatability of beef. Iowa Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 272. 138. Oldfield, J. E., C. W. Fox, E. M. Bickoff, and G. O. Kohler. 1966. Cou- mestrol in alfalfa as a factor in growth and carcass quality in lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 25:167. 139. Orts, F. A. 1968. Cutability and tenderness measures in the bovine carcass. Ph.D. Dissertation. Texas A&M University, College Station. 140. Orts, F. A., G. C. Smith, and R. L. Hostetler. 1971. Texas A&M "Tender- stretch." Tex. Agric. Ext. Serv. Bull. L-1003. 141. Palmer, A. Z., J. W. Carpenter, R. H. Alsmeyer, H. L. Chapman, and W. G. Kirk. 1958. Simple correlations between carcass grade, marbling and ether extract of loins and beef tenderness. J. Anim. Sci. 17:1153. (A) 142. Palmer, A. Z., H. L. Chapman, J. W. Carpenter, and R. H. Alsmeyer. 1957. Slaughter, carcass and tenderness characteristics as influenced by feed intake of steers fed aureomycin and/or diethylstilbestrol on pasture and in drylot. Am. Sac. Anim. Prod. Mimeo. Rep. 143. Paul, P. C., J. Torten, and G. M. Spurlock. 1964a. Eating quality of lamb. I.Effectofage.FoodTechnol. 18:1779. 144. Paul, P. C., J. Torten, and G. M. Spurlock. 1964b. Eating quality of lamb. II. Effect of preslaughter nutrition. Food Technol. 18: 1783. 145. Parrish, F. C., Jr., D. G. Olson, B. E. Miner, R. B. Young, and R. L. Snell. 1973. Relationship of tenderness measurements made by the Armour tenderometer to certain objective, subjective and organoleptic properties of bovine muscle. J. Food Sci. 38:1214. 146. Passbach, F. L., Jr., R. W. Rogers, B. G. Diggs, and B. Baker, Jr. 1968. Effects of limited feeding on market hogs: performance and quantitative and qualitative carcass characteristics. J. Anim. Sci. 27: 1284. 147. Pearson, A. M. 1966. Desirability of beef- its characteristics and their measurement. J. Anim. Sci. 25:843. 148. Pearson, A. M. 1968. Estimating meat yield and quality in live animals. Proc. World Conf. Anim. Prod., p. 139. 149. Pearson, A. M. 1974. What's new in research? In The National Provisioner, September 28, 1974. (Citing Wenham et al. 1974. N.Z. J. Agric. Res. 17:203.) 150. Pearson, A. M., and J. I. Miller. 1950. Influence of rate of freezing and

OCR for page 147
180 SMITH AND CARPENTER length of freezer-storage upon the quality of beef of known origin. J. Anim. Sci. 9: 13. 151. Pohl, C. F. 1959. Palatability characteristics of loins from hogs of known history. Am. Meat Inst. Found. Circ. No. 51. 152. Quarrier, E., Z. L. Carpenter, and G. C. Smith. 1972. A physical method to increase tenderness in lamb carcasses. J. Food Sci. 37:130. 153. Rea, R. H. 1968. Factors affecting curability and certain chemical, physical, histological and organoleptic properties of Holstein-Friesian carcasses. M.S. Thesis. Texas A&M University, College Station. 154. Ritchey, S. J. 1965. The relationships of total, bound and free water and fat content to subjective scores for eating quality in two beef muscles. J. Food Sci. 30:375. 155. Romans, J. R., H. J. Tuma, and W. L. Tucker. 1965. Influence of carcass maturity and marbling on the physical and chemical characteristics of beef. II. Palatability, fiber diameter and proximate analysis. J. Anim. Sci. 24:681. 156. Rupnow, E. H., M. W. Galgan, and J. A. Richter. 1961. Loin eye area, wholesale cuts, shoulder score, grades and yield as measures of meatiness in lambs. J. Anim. Sci. 20:681. (A) 157. Rust, R. E., and D. G. Topel. 1969. Standards for pork color, firmness and marbling. Iowa State Univ. Ext. Bull. 452. 158. Same, R. L., and L. J. Bratzler. 1957. The effect of different degrees of pork carcass fatness on some processing and palatability characteristics. J. Anim. Sci. 16:1071. 159. Satorius, M., and A. M. Child. 1938. Effect of cut, grade and class upon palatability and composition of beef roasts. Minn. Agric. Exp. Stn. Tech. Bull. 131. 160. Simone, M., F. Carroll, and M. T. Clegg. 1958. Effect of degree of finish on differences in quality factors of beef. Food Res. 23:32. 161. Simone, M., F. Carroll, and C. O. Chichester. 1959. Differences in eating quality factors of beef from 18 and 30 month steers. Food Technol. 13:337. 162. Skelley, G. C. 1967. Beef tenderness and the Kramer shear press. J. Anim. Sci. 26:212. (A) 163. Skelley, G. C., and D. L. Handlin. 1971. Pork acceptability as influenced by breed, sex, carcass measurements and curability. J. Anim. Sci. 32:239. 164. Skelley, G. C., D. L. Handlin, and T. E. Bonnette. 1973. Pork acceptability and its relationship to carcass quality. J. Anim. Sci. 36:3. 165. Smith, G. C. 1968. Effects of maturational, physical and chemical changes on ovine carcass composition, quality and palatability. Ph.D. Dissertation. Texas A&M University, College Station. 166. Smith, G. C. 1972. Relationship of the cow-calf producer to the consumer. In Commercial Beef Cattle Production. Lea and Febiger, Philadelphia, Pa. 167. Smith, G. C., M. W. Galgan, and M. W. Weller. 1964. Effect of elemental sulfur on lamb performance and carcass quality. J. Anim. Sci. 23:892. (A) 168. Smith, G. C., Z. L. Carpenter, and G. T. King. 1969a. Considerations for beef tenderness evaluations. J. Food Sci. 34:612. 169. Smith, G. C., Z. L. Carpenter, G. T. King, and K. E. Hoke. 1969b. Lamb palatability studies. Proc. Recip. Meats Conf. 22:69.

OCR for page 147
Eating Quality of Meat Animal Products 181 170. Smith, G. C., and Z. L. Carpenter. 1970. Lamb carcass quality. III. Chem- ical, physical and histological measurements. J. Anim. Sci. 31 :697. 171. Smith, G. C., Z. L. Carpenter, G. T. King, and K. E. Hoke. 1970a. Lamb carcass quality. I. Palatability of leg roasts. J. Anim. Sci. 30:496. 172. Smith, G. C., Z. L. Carpenter, G. T. King, and K. E. Hoke. 1970b. Lamb carcass quality. II. Palatability of rib, loin and sirloin chops. J. Anim. Sci. 31:310. 173. Smith, G. C., T. C. Arango, and Z. L. Carpenter. 1971. Effects of physical and mechanical treatments on the tenderness of the beef longissimus. J. Food Sci. 36:445. 174. Smith, G. C., and Z. L. Carpenter. 1973. Mechanical measurements of meat tenderness using the Nip Tenderometer. J. Text. Stud. 4: 196. 175. Smith, G. C., R. L. West, R. H. Rea, and Z. L. Carpenter. 1973a. Increasing the tenderness of bullock beef by use of antemortem enzyme injection. J. FoodSci.38:182. 176. Smith, G. C., G. T. King, and Z. L. Carpenter. 1973b. Anatomy. in Labora- tory Exercises in Elementary Meat Science, 2d ed. Kemp Publishing Com- pany, Houston, Tex. 177. Smith, G. C., and Z. L. Carpenter. 1974. Factors Affecting the Desirability of Barrow and Gilt Carcasses. Final Report to Livestock and Meat Market- ing Laboratory, ARS' USDA Tex. Agric. Exp. Stn., College Station. 178. Smith, G. C., M. I. Pike, and Z. L. Carpenter. 1974a. Comparison of the palatability of goat meat and meat from four other species. J. Food Sci. 39:1145. 179. Smith, G. C., R. D. Simmons, W. H. Marshall, and Z. L. Carpenter. 1974b. Consumer response to ground beef containing textured vegetable protein. J. Anim. Sci. 39: 176. (A ) 180. Smith, G. C., T. R. Dutson, R. L. Hostetler, and Z. L. Carpenter. 1974c. Subcutaneous fat thickness and tenderness of lamb. J. Anim. Sci. 39: 174. (A) 181. Smith, G. C., M. I. Pike, Z. L. Carpenter, M. Shelton, and R. A. Bowling. 1974d. Quality indicators and palatability attributes of goat carcasses. J. Anim.Sci.39:175.(A) 182. Smith, G. C., R. L. West, and Z. L. Carpenter. 1975. Factors affecting de sirability of bacon and commercially-processed pork bellies. J. Anim. Sci. 41:54. 183. Stouffer, J. R., D. E. Hague, D. H. Marden, and G. H. Wellington. 1958. Some relationships between dive animal measurements and carcass char- acteristics of lamb. J. Anim. Sci. 17: 1 151. (A) 184. Suess, G. G., R. W. Bray, R. W. Lewis, and V. H. Brungardt. 1966. Influence of certain live and quantitative carcass traits upon beef palatability. J. Anim. Sci. 25:1203. 185. The Living Bible. 1971. Tyndale House Publishers, Wheaton, Ill. 186. Trowbridge, E. A., and H. C. Moffett. 1932. Yearling heifers and steers for beef production. Mo. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 314. 187. Tuley, W. B. 1969. Factors affectin;, the incidence of PSE porcine muscle and certain chemical, physical and histological properties of PSE muscle. M.S. Thesis. Texas A&M University, College Station. 188. Tuma, H. J., R. L. Henrickson, D. F. Stephens, and R. Moore. 1962. Ir~-

OCR for page 147
182 SMITH AND CARPENTER fluence of marbling and animal age on factors associated with beef quality. J. Anim. Sci. 21:848. 189. University of Wisconsin. 1963. Pork quality standards. Wis. Agric. Exp. Stn. Spec. Bull. 9. . USDA. 1937. Report of Review Committee, Cooperative Meat Investigations, Vol. 2. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, D.C. . USDA. 1938. Report of the Chief of the Bureau of Animal Industry. U.S. Dep. Agric. Publ., p. 9. 192. Walter, M. J., D. E. Gall, L. P. Anderson, and E. A. Kline. 1963. Effect of marbling and maturity on beef tenderness. J. Anim. Sci. 22:1115. (A) 193. Walter, M. J., D. E. Gall, E. A. Kline, L. P. Anderson, and A. G. Carlin. 1965. Effect of marbling and maturity on beef muscle characteristics. I. Objective measurements of tenderness and chemical properties. Food Technol. 19:841. 194. Wanderstock, J. J., and J. I. Miller. 1948. Quality and palatability of beef as affected by method of feeding and carcass grade. Food Res. 13:291. 195. Wasserman, A. E., and F. Talley. 1968. Organoleptic identification of roasted beef, veal, lamb and pork as affected by fat. J. Food Sci. 33:219. 196. Weber, A. D., and W. J. Loeffel. 1932. Feeding tests and carcass studies with early spring lambs and aged western ewes. Nebr. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 276. 197. Weber, A. D., W. J. Loeffel, and M. Peters. 1931. Length of feeding period and plane of nutrition as factors in lamb feeding. Nebr. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 262. 198. Weir, C. E. 1960. Palatability characteristics of meat. In The Science of Meat and Meat Products. W. H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, Calif. 199. Weller, M. W., M. W. Galgan, and M. Jacobson. 1962. Flavor and tender- ness of lamb as influenced by age. I. Anim. Sci. 21 :927. 200. Wellington, G. H., and J. R. Stouffer. 1959. Beef marbling, its estimation and influence on tenderness and juiciness. N.Y. Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull. 941. 201. Wilcox, E. B., and L. S. Galloway. 1952. Quality and palatability of lamb of three different cross breeds. Food Technol. 6: 16. 202. Willman, H. A. 1937. The middle ground in finishing lambs to meet market preferences. Proc. Am. Soc. Anim. Prod., p. 205. 203. Wismer-Pedersen, J. 1959. Quality of pork in relation to rate of pH change post mortem. Food Res. 24:711. 204. Zessin, D. 1960. American Meat Institute Foundation, Chicago, Al. (Unpub- lished data. ) 205. Zessin, D. A., C. V. Pohl, G. D. Wilson, C. E Weir, B. C. Breidenstein, B. B. Breidenstein, and D. S. Garragan. 1961. Effect of preslaughter dietary stress on the carcass characteristics and palatability of pork. J. Anim. Sci. 20:871. 206. Ziegler, P. T. 1962. The Meat We Eat. The Interstate Printers and Publish- ers, Inc., Danville, m. 207. Zinn, D. W., H. Elliott, D. Burnett, and R. M. Durham. 1961. Evaluation of USDA beef grading methods. Mimeographed report. Annul Meet. Am. Soc. Anim. Sci., Chicago, Ill.