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 148
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 149
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 150
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 151
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 152
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 153
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 154
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 155
~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 156
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 157
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 172
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 173
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 174
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 175
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 176
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 177
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 178
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 179
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 180
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 181
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 182
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.
Representative terms from entire chapter:
connective tissue
