LIBRARY,
‘ A & M COLLEGE»
CAMPUS.

R72—337-6m

TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

A. B. CONNER, DIRECTOR
COLLEGE STATION, BRAZOS COUNTY, TEXAS

BULLETIN NO. 542

JUNE, 1937
DIVISION OF RURAL HOME RESEARCH
EIQQWRY ~=1~aa$
 A ‘ﬂgﬂﬁﬁbeﬂﬁ? *1 "
mmmra! l ‘

‘Cebﬁzézb  IT<*-~i’ 

THE EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE
AND TIME OF COOKING ON THE
TENDERNESS OF ROASTS

 

AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE OF TEXAS
T. O. WALTON, President

Well-done round-bone chuck and rump roasts were much more
tender cooked at a 10w oven temperature of 125 degrees Centi-
grade (257 degrees Fahrenheit) than at a high oven temperature
of 225 degrees Centigrade (437 degrees Fahrenheit); well-done
standing rib and half-ham roasts were, also, more tender cooked
at the low oven temperature; but there was little difference in the
results of the two methods of cooking for the well-done leg of
lamb roasts or for the medium-rare rib and chuck roasts. Oven
temperature, therefore, seems to be an important factor in produc-
ing tenderness in some roasts but not in others. Any apparent
relationship between tenderness and oven temperature observed
in these tests seems to be much better explained on the basis of a
diﬁerence in the time required for cooking—-the well-done round-
bone chuck roasts requiring about six hours longer cooking time
at the low oven temperature than at the high oven temperature;
the well-done rump roasts about ﬁve hours longer; the well-done
rib and half-ham roasts about three and a quarter hours longer;
and the well-done leg of lamb and the medium-rare rib and chuck
roasts less than two hours longer.

The longer time of cooking at the low oven temperature actually
required less gas for each of the cuts except the rump and round-
bone chuck. Gas consumption was not obtained for the rump,
but for the chuck the cost of the gas was not increased by as much
as one cent per roast even though the difference in cooking time
was about six hours.

Although a decided advantage in the tenderness of some of the
paired cuts was obtained with the low oven temperature, in none
of the cuts did the low oven temperature method produce roasts
all of which were scored “very tender.” More work needs to be
done before recommendations can be made of processes of cooking
which will uniformly produce tender roasts. Present knowledge
would indicate, however, that a housewife will have a better
chance of obtaining a tender roast if she cooks it at a low oven
temperature than if she cooks it at a high oven temperature.

CONTENTS

Introduction

Page

Contributions of previous investigators"
Experimental procedure for well-done roasts
Results from well-done roasts
Tenderness
Time and gas

Possible connection between slower cooking and
tenderness-response _-___

Experimental procedure for medium-rare roasts
Results from medium-rare roasts
Tenderness
Time and gas

Discussion of results

10
12
12
13

13
23
25
25
27
29
31

Acknowledgments _ .
Summary

Literature cited

Supplementary tables

32
33
36-61

BULLETIN NO. 542 JUNE, 1937

THE EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND TIME OF COOKING
ON THE TENDERNESS OF ROASTS

Sylvia Cover, Foods Specialist, Division of Rural Home Research

Research in food preparation seeks to determine the cause of the
changes which take place when food is prepared for the table. Such
changes may be those which delight the eye or the palate as well as those
which inﬂuence nutritive value. Among such changes, those inﬂuencing
the palatability of meat have recently been studied systematically, so
that now former explanations of these changes may be evaluated. As a
result, some of the old explanations are being discarded entirely, such as
the one which advocated the searing of meat on the theory that the crust
formed by the searing held in the juices during subsequent cooking.
Other statements or so-called “principles” may be found to be true in
‘a. much more restricted sense than was formerly supposed.

For many years the use of low temperatures in meat cookery has been
defended by the statement that high temperatures toughen protein. This
statement has been used arbitrarily in regard to cooking in water (“sim-
mering” versus “boiling,” where all of the temperatures are relatively
10W) as Well as to cooking in an oven (“slow” oven versus “hot” oven,
where all of the temperatures are relatively high). While high tempera-
tures may toughen a thin layer of meat in contact with them, they may
have no effect on meat in the center of a large roast where the tempera-
ture does not approach closely that of even a low temperature oven.
With tenderness of meat one of the most important qualities of palat-
ability and with oven temperature one of the physical factors over which
the housewife has most adequate control, the effect of high and low oven
temperatures on the tenderness of meat seemed a problem worthy of

study.

This study is the ﬁrst of a series to be conducted at this station, the
ultimate aim of which is to ﬁnd out what causes tenderness or toughness
in meat so that procedures may be recommended which will uniformly
produce tender roasts. A The study is also a part of the national co-
operative project “A study of the Factors which Inﬂuence the Quality
and Palatability of Meat.”

CONTRIBUTIONS OF‘ PREVIOUS IN VESTIGATORS

Before 1925 extensive studies of the changes in meat during cooking
were made in two laboratories, that of Lehmann at the Hygienic Institute
in Wurzburg, Germany (1895-1907), and that of Grindley at the Univer-
sity of Illinois (1898-1907). Although Lehmann (17) and his students
were especially interested in tenderness, their work was done with raw and
boiled meat. No work with roasted meat or meat cooked at different
temperatures was reported.

6 BULLETTN NO. 542, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

In Grindley’s work with roasted meat, observations in regard to tender-
ness of the products were reported in only a few instances. A right
5th rib (13) taken from a four-year-old Aberdeen-Angus steer was seared
at an oven temperature of 249°C‘ (480°F) for 15 minutes and then
cooked for 1 hour and 10 minutes at an oven temperature as near as
possible to 193°C (380°F). The cooking time was 20.1 minutes per
pound and the cooked meat was described as “somewhat tough and dry.”
In another experiment (13), “a rib” taken from a well fattened steer
was seared for 15 minutes at an oven temperature of 240°C (464°F) and
then cooked for 1 hour and 20 minutes at 193°C (380°F). The cooking
time was 24 minutes per pound. “The cooked meat was medium done,
juicy and tender.” As an oven with a temperature of 193°C (380°F)
may be regarded as a “hot” oven, the observation that some of the meat
cooked at this temperature was tough and some of it tender is of interest
even though meat thermometers were not used for determining doneness

and the internal temperature of the roasts may have varied considerably.

Sprague and Grindley (20) reported one test made by cooking dupli-
cate samples from the same animal, one in the gas range oven at 195°C
(383°F) and the other in the Aladdin oven (practically no oven ventila-
tion) at 100°C (212°F). “It was agreed that the latter gave the best re-
sults in regard to the ﬂavor and juiciness of the meat but that there was
little difference in the tenderness of the two roasts.” While they gave no
description of the cut used in this test, the tests described just previously
in the bulletin were with two-rib rolled roasts. Meat thermometers were
used in their other tests but the internal temperature of these roasts was
not reported. We may safely assume, however, that it was the same or
nearly so in both roasts.

In 1925 the National Livestock and Meat Board took steps to organize
as a national cooperative project “A Study of the Factors which Inﬂuence
the Quality and Palatability of Meat,” with the United States Depart-
ment of Agriculture and the State Agricultural Experiment Stations
cooperating. While the production and the handling phases of the prob-
lem were emphasized, an important place in the project outline was given
to the effect of methods of cooking on palatability. Two distinct aims
have been clearly stated by the cooperators doing the meat cookery
research under this comprehensive project:

1. The development of standard methods of cooking urgently needed
by many cooperators for testing the effect on palatability of such
differences as age, sex, breeding, ration, and management of the
animals.

2. The development of the best methods of cooking the meat for
serving, methods which are especially adapted for the use of the
housewife or for large quantity cookery.

The distinction between these two lines of investigation is aptly ex-
pressed in the following quotation from Alexander (1) of the Bureau of
Home Economics, who was especially interested in developing standard

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND TIME OF COOKING 7

methods of cooking. “What we are most concerned with . . . is cooking
for the purpose of determining the quality of meat. Cooking in this case
is not primarily to produce an attractive dish although that should be
done if possible. Its function is to prepare the meat in a way which will
enable those who test it to estimate the inherent characteristics of the
meat under consideration, and furthermore, what is equally important,
to prepare it under conditions which are applicable to the kind and cut
of meat in question and under conditions which can be standardized.”
The ﬁrst cooking procedure adopted as a standard method was essentially
a. low oven temperature method but required the use of two ovens and
was not suitable for the housewife. The procedure was as follows: the
roast was seared for 20 minutes in an oven heated to 275°C (527°F);
the cooking was ﬁnished slowly in another oven regulated to 125°C
257°F) and held at that temperature until the desired temperature at
the center of the roast was reached——57°C for beef (4), and later 75°C‘
for lamb (5); after removal from the oven the roast was allowed to stand
until the temperature of the center had reached its maximum.

A special grading chart for cooked meat was devised by the cooperators.
In this grading chart the roasts are scored individually for each factor of
palatability. Consideration is given to the intensity of seven factors—
aroma, texture, ﬂavor of fat, ﬂavor of lean, tenderness, quality of juice,
and quantity of juice——and to the desirability of three factors—aroma,
ﬂavor of fat, and ﬂavor of lean. The adjectives are weighted from 1 to 7,
7 representing the adjective describing the most intense or the most
desirable state of the factor under consideration. Each roast then receives
a numerical measure or score for each factor-—-this score being the
average of the opinions of several judges. As a result of systematic
records of the various factors of palatability, many contributions to a
better understanding of the entire problem of the relationship between
methods of cooking and the palatability of meat have been made, but
only the published contributions which deal with the effect of oven
temperatures on tenderness will be considered here.

As early as 1929, Alexander (2) said, “Questions have recently arisen
concerning the effects which may be produced on the palatability of
roasted meats by the employment of different oven temperatures. It has
been suggested by some of our investigators that the low oven tempera-
ture and consequent slow cooking of the standard method may produce
effects akin to pot-roasting. This may so modify the toughness of meat,
they hold, as to bring to one level of tenderness, when cooked, a series of
pieces of meat which originally in the raw state exhibited a wide range
of toughness or tenderness.” Consequently she cooked 8 left and 8 right
legs of lamb from different animals by the standard method and their
pair mates by a method which diﬁered from the standard in that the
ﬁnal cooking took place at 150°C (302°F') instead of at 125°C (257°F)
as in the standard method. She reported that comparison of the scores
for tenderness showed that 75% of the samples roasted by the standard
method were judged to be more tender than their mates which were

8 BULLETIN NO. 542, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

cooked more quickly when the oven temperature was raised from 125°C
to 150°C. The mean of the tenderness scores for the legs from 16 dif-
ferent animals was 4.25 for the standard method and 3.81 for the method
using the higher oven temperature. But because the range of the scores
was from 3.00 to 5.80 for the standard method and from 3.00 to 5.00 for
the higher oven temperature method, she concluded that “while it is too
soon to draw manry conclusions, these results indicate that the standard
method of roasting lamb does not destroy the individuality of samples
cooked according to its directions.” Later Alexander (3) said that when
almost any reasonable oven temperature is used for roasting meat, “there
seems to be no signiﬁcant modiﬁcation of the palatability of the meat
that can be detected by the measures now employed.”

Developing and testing methods of cooking suitable for the housewife
was emphasized in the ﬁrst meat cookery work at the University of
Missouri. Cline, Cover, and Whipple (6, 11), using constant oven temper-
atures of 325°F (1'63°C), 375°]? (191°C), and 425°F (218°C) with
chuck I roasts cooked to an internal temperature of 57°C, found the
respective mean scores for tenderness to be 5.81 (8 roasts), 5.46 (7
roasts), and 5.32 (7 roasts). The scores decreased very slightly with
increasing oven temperature.

Cline, Trowbridge, Foster, and Fry (10) have reported that high oven
temperatures decrease the tenderness of meat cooked to an internal
temperature of 57°C (medium-rare). This conclusion was supported by
data from two series of tests. In the ﬁrst series, prime ribs of beef
roasted at constant oven temperatures of 110°C (230°F), 163°C (325°F),
191°C (376OF), 218°C (424°F), and 260°C (500°F) were reported to
have respective scores for tenderness as follows: 20.89, 19.56, 18.76,
17.65, and 16.87. The number of roasts by each method was not stated
nor was anry information given in regard to the score card used, yet it
is obvious that the scores for tenderness decrease slightly with increasing
temperature. In the second series, 6 pairs of cuts from each of 6 good
grade heifers were cooked at constant oven temperatures of 125°C
(257°F) and 165°C‘ (32901?) to an internal temperature of 57°C. The
mean scores* for tenderness for oven temperatures of 125°C and 165°C
respectively were reported as prime rib 5.56, 5.29; chuck I 5.63, 5.75;
chuck II 5.33, 4.92; rump 4.17, 3.98; sirloin tip 5.44, 5.21; and heel of
round 4.55, 4.30. The difference between the mean scores for any one
cut is slight and no statistical analysis was reported to show whether or
not the difference was signiﬁcant in any of the 6 cuts, yet the fact that
higher mean scores for tenderness were obtained with the lower oven
temperature in 5 out of the 6 cuts may be taken as an indication that
a low oven temperature of 125°C produces a more tender medium-rare
roast than does a higher oven temperature of 165°C. Furthermore,
when the scores for tenderness alone were selected from the scores for

* The grading chart of the national cooperative meat investigations was
used: lzextremely tough, 2:very tough, 3:tough, 4:s1ightly tough,
5=moderately tender, GItender, 7:very tender. .

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND TIME OF COOKING

.0.~B~.muwQEO@ co>o nmE o0 33¢ 5*

o3. owé zww iiw wow Z6 84. oww ivw *www 3w www . . . . .d@o2
2.4 $4. 8w oow 8e 0N4‘ *oow *2; *w~w *oow www oww N»
"x2e ._.oo.¢ oow oow oow owe oow oww oww oo.w "Row *oww w:
35¢ “owe 8w 8w owe 2e oow oww wNw oo.w wow oo.o ow
owe 3+ woe www wow wow oww 2w *oo.w *oww oow oow S
3+ owe éﬁw ‘n24 *2: *3», 2e oo.w 35w *oww oow owé 3
omé owe *2; *oow oow woe 25w *oow *w~..o 05.5w 3w oow w
E33 “maﬁa E33 AELws E35 Eiws Frag P538 Qrﬁwo E $9 E033 Eiws
oowwo oowﬁ Uowo“ oowﬁ UomOH 0&2 ooww. _ Oowﬁ oowwo oowﬁ 0&8 oowﬁ “QQEEH
REE<
v55» o0 30E woo Q3 503w QEEMH C x350 ~ M350 n? wEim

.UHQMnHQbPQO ~22» QQSO “a. ﬁwaw 50am Uuwiﬂauﬁen mwmnaa wonmai HQ mmoinvwiow HQH moaoom

J“ Q-iﬂi.

10 BULLETIN NO. 542, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

all of the factors of palatability for each cut from each animal and when
these were arranged together in Table 1, a comparison of the roast scores
showed that 24 out of a total of 36 or 67 % of the roasts cooked at 125°C
were more tender than their mates which were cooked more quickly at
165°C.

Cline, Loughead, and Schwartz (8) used prime rib, chuck I, chuck II,
rump, sirloin tip, and heel of round roasts from 6 animals including a
medium and a high-medium grade steer, a low-good and a good grade
heifer, and a low-good and a good grade cow. These roasts were cooked
at constant low oven temperatures of 257°}? (125°C) and 311°F (155°C).
As this was merely an annual report, no palatability data were given and
no direct reference was made to a comparison of the two methods for
tenderness, but they said, “There was no decided advantage of one method
of roasting over the other, as far as palatability was concerned.”

Cline and Foster (7) used beef roasts of known history cooked by
three methods: constant oven temperatures of 100°C‘ (212°F) and
225°C (437°F), and the standard method: sear at 260°C (500°F) and
ﬁnish at 125°C (257°F). No data on tenderness were given nor was any
information given concerning the number or kind of cuts used. In this
annual report they said, “There was a very slight difference in tender-
ness in favor of the roast cooked at low oven temperatures.”

At the Kansas Station (14, 15) less tender cuts free from bone were
used. One of each pair was cooked in a steam jacketed kettle and the
other in a covered cast aluminum roaster. The cuts included 10 pairs of
clod (U. S. Medium), 10 pairs of rump (U. S. Good), and'20 pairs of
bottom round (U. S. Good). The approximate weight of each cut was
10 pounds for the rump and 15 pounds for each of the other two. Sam-
ples were tested for palatability and shear but no data for palatability or
shear were given in the brief progress reports. It was reported, however,
that the air temperature of the cooker had a greater effect than the
method of cooking. An air temperature of 160°F (71°C) inside either
utensil gave a more tender product than did a temperature of from
200°F (93°C) to 210°F (99°C) when the meat was cooked to an inter-

_nal temperature of 160°F (71°C).

The data of the various workers seems to indicate a relationship be-
tween oven temperature and tenderness but the workers do not agree
on the interpretation which should be placed on the data.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE FOR WELL-DONE ROASTS

Limiting the problem to only one of the factors (oven temperature)
which may have an inﬂuence on the best method of cooking for the
highest degree of palatability and to only one of the factors of palatability
(tenderness) provides an excellent opportunity for studying intensively
the relationship between these two factors.

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND TIME OF COOKING ll

The methods used were, in general, those recommended bry the cooking
committee of the national cooperative project. Several changes were
made to simplify the problem still further. The standard removal tem-
perature for beef roasts is 57°C (135°F') and is the one generally used
in work previously reported. The beef roasts used in the present experi-
ment were left in the oven until an internal temperature of 80°C or 176°F
(well-done) was reached. Well-done roasts were used for two reasons:
ﬁrst, many families prefer Well-done roasts and the proof of a deﬁnite
effect of high and low oven temperatures on the tenderness of well-done
meat is of practical importance; and, second, if oven temperature does
have an inﬂuence on tenderness the longer the roast remains exposed to
the oven temperature the more pronounced the effect should be.

Only two oven temperatures were used, 125°C‘ (257°F) and 225°C
(437°F) (as low as convenient without special adjustment of the gas
and as high as possible without producing a burned roast). These oven
temperatures were held constant throughout the cooking period. Either
temperature would be easy to use in a home kitchen.

As the differences in tenderness previously reported were small, it
seemed particularly important in setting up this experiment to provide
the conditions necessary for the application of statistical analysis to the
data which would be obtained. With only the two extremes of oven tem-
perature, the effect on tenderness could be compared directly by the use
of paired roasts from the right and left sides of the same animal. The
pairing of the samples was carried still further by testing tenderness by
the “paired-eating method”—a new method (devised in this laboratory)
in which comparative judgments are obtained from paired bites from
paired slices from paired roasts. These precautions in pairing the sam-
ples and in the method of testing give an important advantage when the
data are subjected to statistical analysis (18, 22). The details of this
method are given in a previous report (12). Only those judgments were
used which were made after the judge had had some experience with
this method. This limited the number of ofﬁcial judges to 12 persons,
3 of whom were regular in attendance during the entire 3 year period,
but 4 to 6 were usually available for judging on any one day.

In order to have a record of how tender or how tough the meat actually
was—something to which the paired-eating method gives no clue-—-—a
5-point grading chart (12) was devised similar to the 7-point grading chart
of the national cooperative project. The adjectives (very tender, tender,
neutral, tough, and-very tough) were weighted from 1 to 5, 5 represent-
ing “very tender.”

The cuts of meat used were (a) a rib roast of beef including the 9th,
10th, and 11th ribs cut with the knife crowding the rear edge of the 8th
and 11th ribs; (b) a round-bone chuck roast of beef which included the
ﬁrst three inches and was cut parallel to the lower edge of the square cut
chuck; (c) a rump roast of beef which included the ﬁrst three inches and
was cut parallel to the surface adjacent to the round; (d) a half-ham

12 BULLETIN NO. 542, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

roast of pork cut just behind and parallel to the exposed projection of
the aitch bone; and (e) a leg of lamb roast cut back of the ﬂare of the
ilium where the bone is round or slightly wedge-shaped.

The beef was obtained from the Department of Animal Husbandry and
from two packing houses in Fort Worth. The carcass grades included
U. S. Prime, U. S. Choice, U. S. Good, U. S. Medium, and U. S. Common.
The pork was obtained from the Department of Animal Husbandry and
was in most cases from animals fed by the Department of Animal Hus-
bandry of the College or by the Division of Swine Husbandry in the Ex-
periment Station. The lamb was obtained from the Department of Animal
Husbandry and from one packing house in Fort Worth. With meat ob-
tained from so many sources, storage temperatures, time of cutting retail
cut, and ripening periods could not be kept constant for all cuts. They
were identical, however, for any pair of cuts. This was the important
consideration when tenderness was tested by the paired eating method.

The muscles tested were the longissimus dorsi in the rib, the triceps
brachaii in the round-bone chuck, the biceps femoris in the rump, and
the semimembranosus and the biceps femoris in the half-ham and the
leg of lamb roasts.

RESULTS FROM WELL-DONE ROASTS
Tenderness

Data from tests for tenderness of individual pairs of roasts are found
in the supplementary tables (Tables A, B, and C). The summary of
these data given in Table 2 shows that:

1. The majority of the paired judgments for the rib, chuck, rump, and
half-ham roasts is in favor of the constant low oven temperature
method—125°C (257°F). (See column headed “Tenderness ratio”.
The numbers in this column may be changed into percentages by
multiplying by 100.) <

2. These majorities are not due to chance, since the deviations are
more than 3 times their standard deviations. (See column headed
d
2-)

3. The majority is larger in the case of the round-bone chuck (96%)
and the rump (93%) roasts than in the case of the standing rib

(69%) and the half-ham (75%) roasts.

4. The difference in tenderness between the two methods of cooking
is more “decided” in the case of the round-bone chuck roasts than
of the standing rib roasts or of the half-ham roasts of pork. (See
columns headed “slight” and “decided” under 125°C.)

5. The difference in tenderness between the two methods of cooking
becomes more “decided” as the grade of the carcass decreases and
becomes particularly important for the chuck roasts from the low-
est grade carcasses.

6. The leg of lamb roasts are conspicuous in that the very slight
majority (51%) of the paired judgments in favor of the low oven

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND TIME OF COOKING 13

temperature method is not signiﬁcant, as the deviation is only 0.2
times its standard deviation.

7. The roasts cooked at the low oven temperatures were only rarely
given the highest possible score——5-—for tenderness and those
cooked at the high oven temperature only rarely given the lowest
score—-1. (See columns headed “Weighted adjectives”.)

Time and Gas

In addition to the results for tenderness, comparisons of the time and
gas required for cooking the roasts well-done at the two oven tempera-
tures are worthy of practical consideration. These comparisons for the
individual roasts cooked after individual gas meters were installed are
given in the supplementary tables (Table D). The summary given in
Table 3 shows that:

1. The low oven temperature method required a longer total time as
well as a longer time per pound than did the high oven tempera-
ture method. This is in agreement with the ﬁndings of other
workers (6, 7, 9, 10, 16, and 20).

2. With the rib, half-ham, and leg of lamb roasts, less gas was re-
quired for the low oven temperature method even though the cook-
ing period was longer. As a result, the cost of cooking for the low
oven temperature method was lower than for the high oven tem-
perature method; this was, respectively, for the rib $0.019, $0.024;
for the half-ham $0.021, $0.027; for the leg of lamb $0.01, $0.013.
This agrees with the results reported by other workers (9).

3. With the well-done chuck roasts the time of cooking at the low
oven temperature was so exaggerated in length (average about 8;}
hours) that the gas consumption was greater than when the high
oven temperature was used. This increased the average cost of
cooking at the low oven temperature to $0.027, while the average
cost of cooking at the high oven temperature was only $0.018.

Possible Connection Between Slower Cooking and Tender-
ness-Response

As it was shown in a previous publication (12) from this station that
the tenderness-ratio of the round-bone chuck roasts is signiﬁcantly greater
than that of the rib roasts (chuck 0.9628 -— rib 0.6908 = 0.2720 ;+-_
0.0325), it became of interest to determine any possible causes of this
difference.

Factors causing an increase in tenderness are known to include an
increase in the length of the ripening period and are thought to include
an increase in the amount of marbling and a decrease in the amount of
connective tissue present. In these experiments there is a diﬁerence in

14 BULLETIN NO. 542, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 2. Summary of tests for

Number of
Ripen-
U. S. carcass Number ing 125°C
grade of period
pairs in days
Difference No
_____i________ differ-
More ence
tender
Slight Decided
Beef——9th, 10th, and 11th ribs
Prime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . p 1 10.0 2 2 0 3

Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 10 4 80 ——T —— 11

Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 10.0 12 1O 1 3

Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 10.6 27 19 8 5

Common . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 10.4 47 27 20 4

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 10.41 168 S8 29 26
Beef—Round-bone chuck
Prime . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 10.0 8 4 4 O

Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8. 2 36 —’[ — 0

Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9 . 0 16 12 4 0

Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 9 .5 33 16 17 3

Common . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 9 .0 48 12 34 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 17 9 . OI 141 44 59 3

Beef—rump
Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 9.8 75 —-1‘ —— 4

Pork-half-ham

16 6.9 104 \ 67 \ 36 \ 25

Lamb-deg
Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7 .0 4 3 1 4
G00 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 7 . O 32 23 9 l2
Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.3 21 11 1O 12
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 6.71 57 37 20 28

TJudgments of U. S. Choice carcasses were obtained before records were
kept of how decided were the differences in tenderness.
tMean of all roasts.

the ripening periods of the rib and chuck roasts but this difference (an
average of less than two days as shown in Table 3) appears to be too
small to account for the rather wide diﬁerence in tenderness-response.

The rib cuts are supposed to show more marbling than do the round-
bone chuck cuts, and the higher grade carcasses to show more than the
lower grade carcasses, but the effect of high and low oven temperatures

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND TIME OF COOKING 15

tenderness of well-done roasts.

Tenderness

 EV“'"‘"F  "

judgments by the paired-eating method

 

 

Weighted
225°C For statistical treatment adjectives
__ _____ average
per roast
Difference More tender* De- Stand-
_________ Total Tender- viation ard de- d
More N ness d= viation —-
tender 125°C 225°C ratio N V——-— o‘
Slight Decided 11s n: ns/N "s- ? <’= Nvq 12s°c 225°C
Beef——9th, 10th and 11th ribs

3 3 0 8 3.5 4.5 3.8 3.9

31 -—— ——- 122 85.5 36.5 3.4 3.1

5 2 3 20 13.5 6.5 3.9 3.9

12 11 1 44 29.5 14.5 3.5 3.0
17 12 2 68 49.0 19. 2.9 2.5
68 28 6 262 181.0 81.0 0.6908 50.0 8.09 6.2 3.31 3.01

Beef-round-bone chuck

0 0 0 8 8.0 0.0 5.0 4.4

4 —— —- 40 36.0 4.0 3.9 3.9

0 0 0 16 16.0 0.0 4.0 3.6

0 0 0 36 34.5 1.5 4.2 3.4

0 0 0 48 48.0 0.0 4.4 3.0
4 0 O 148 142.5 5.5 0.9628 68.5 6.08 11.3 4.21 3.51

Beef-rump
I 4 1 —— — 83 77.0 6.0 0.9277 35.5 4.60 7.7 3.7 2.9
Pork-half-ham
I 27 I 19 8 156 116.5 39.5 0.7468 38.5 6.25 6.2 3.6 3.1
Lamb——leg

4 4 0 12 6.0 6.0 4.2 4.0

24 15 9 68 38.0 30.0 2.5 2.5
27 16 11 6O 27.0 33.0 2.7 2.7
55 35 20 140 71.0 69.0 0.5071 1.0 5.9 0.2 2.81,‘ 2.81

*To include judgments checked “no difference,” 0.5 is added to each of the
two groups for each such judgment.
IMean of all roasts.

on tenderness is in the reverse order. It is doubtful Whether marbling
as such increases the effect of oven temperatures on tenderness.

The relative amounts of connective tissue contained in the small pieces
of the two muscles tested is not known. The bites, however, were paired
in such a way that visible heavy connective tissue was avoided wherever

16 BULLETIN NO. 542, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table 3. Summary of time and gas required to cook roasts

 

125°C
Ripen- _
Number ing Weight Internal Time in oven
U. S. carcass of period of roast temperature minutes
grade pairs in
days
Initial Removal - Per
Grams Pounds °C °C Total Pound
9th, 10th, and 11th ribs of beef
Prime . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 10.0 5335 11.8 6.0 80 435 36 9

Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 11 10.4 3641 8.0 7.0 80 343 42 8

Good . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 10.0 4756 10.5 4.5 80 399 38 O

Medium . . . . . . . . . . . .. 4 10.5 4156 9 .2 4.3 80 370 41 4

Common . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7 10.4 3544 7.8 3.4 80 337 43 6

Mean of all roasts... 251 10.4 3853 8.5 5.3 80 354 42 2
Round-bone chuck of beef

Prime . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 1 10.0 3977 8.8 8.0 80 455 51.7

Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 8.3 2838 6.3 8.5 80 406 64. 8

Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 9.0 3396 7.5 6.5 80 526 70.5

Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 9.5 2962 6.5 6.8 80 534 82 .5

Common . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 9.0 2871 6.3 5.3 80 531 83.9
Mean of all roasts... 171 9.0 3011 6. 6 6.7 80 497 75.6
Rump of beef
Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9 9.8 3417 7 .5 7 .4 80 434 58.1
Half-ham of pork
16 6.9 4676 10.3 5.5 84 392 38.4
Leg of lamb
Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 7.0 2488 5 5 4.5 76 252 45.9
Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 7.0 1989 4 4 9.3 76 181 41.3
Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6.3 2002 4 4 10.7 76 192 44.0
Mean of all roasts. .. 141 6. 7 2066 4 6 9.2 76 195 43.1

iTotal.

possible. It 'is worthy of note that this was at least as diﬂicult in the
longissimus dorsi of the rib as in the triceps brachii of the chuck,

Another factor which has been considered important in making meat
tender is slowness of cooking, but this factor has been so closely con-
nected with the temperature of cooking that no distinction between the
two has been made in previous work. A marked difference in cooking
time may be noted in Table 3 between the rib and chuck roasts when the
same oven temperature (125°C) was used—the standing rib cooking to
80°C in an average of 42.2 minutes per pound while the round-bone chuck
roasts required an average of 75.6 minutes per pound (Table 3). This

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND TIME OF COOKING 17

well-done at constant oven temperatures of 125°C and 225°C.

 

 

ll 225°C
i Weight Internal Time in oven
Gas* I of roast temperature minutes Gas*
I
Cubic Cost Initial Removal Per Cubic Cost
feet cents Grams Pounds °C °C Total pound feet cents
9th, 10th, and 11th ribs of beef
33.5 2 3 5592 12.3 2.0 80 217 17.6 45.2 31
—— ——— 3668 8.1 7.8 80 158 19 5 —— ———
31.1 2.1 4709 10.4 5.5 80 183 17.6 38.6 2.6
27.6 1.9 3987 8.8 3.8 8O 162 18.8 32.0 2.2
26.3 1.8 3585 7.9 4.6 80 149 18.8 33.0 2.2
28.0‘ 1.9 3856 8.5 5.8 80 160 19.0 34.7 2.4
Round-bone chuck of beef
37.7 2 5 4548 10.0 8.0 8O 120 12 O 27.8 1.9
—— —— 3430 7.5 8.0 so 126 16 9 — ——
41.2 2.8 3422 7.6 8.0 80 124 16 5 27.1 1.9
38.4 2.6 2999 6.6 6.5 80 132 20 2 26.6 1.8
40.4 2.7 2882_ 6.4 6.0 80 125 19 8 26.4 1.8
39.7 2.7 3200 7.0 6.9 80 127 18 3 26.7 1.8
Rump of beef
——- -— 3692 I s. 1 7.9 s0 12s 15.4 —- -—
Half-ham of pork
30.8 2.1 4867 ' 10.7 5.8 84 197 18.6 39.3 2.7
Leg of lamb
I

19.3 1.3 2562 5.7 4.0 77 124 21.9 24.9 1.7
12.2 0.8 1,993 4.4 9.7 76 83 18.9 17.1 1.2
13.6 0.9 2015 4.2 9 5 76 86 19.5 11.8 0.8
15.3 1.0 2084 4.5 8 8 76.1 90 19.6 19.1 1.3

 

*Preheating 0f ovens not included. In 30 tests the preheating of the ovens
to 125°C averaged 5.4 cubic feet, costing $0.004. In 20 tests the preheating
to 225°C averaged 11.8 cubic feet, costing $0.008. Cost of gas $0.675 per
1000 cubic feet.

was brought to the attention of the Writer in an impressive manner, for
it became necessary to start the working day several hours earlier in
order to secure well-done chuck roasts in time for judging.

Time-temperature curves for the rib and chuck cuts were plotted and
the interesting observation Was made that the two curves for the low
oven temperature method differed considerably in shape. The curves for
the standing rib roasts showed a gradual decrease in slope as the cooking
continued-—this was also noted by Sprague and Grindley (20)—but the

18 BULLETIN NO. 542, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

curves for the round-bone chuck roasts were ﬂattened rather abruptly at
about 65°C. The ﬂattening was so decided between 65°C and 75°C‘ that
usually at least half of the total time in the oven was required for raising
the internal temperature from the medium-rare (63°C) to the well-done
stage (80°C) of cooking. There was no marked difference in the shape
of the curves for the rib and chuck roasts cooked at the high oven temper-

I I I I I I I I I I
9o_._ __I
Chuck Bib Rib Chuck
(zzswc) (221m) (ins-c) (ms-c;
w__ _
15> 70- . a a i
z - °
3 eo__ _
t’
K
5 5o__ Chuck an» __
v .
'3 Roast no. 187i. 192R
g 4o_ , 12s": m. lbs. 6.4 1.2 __
3 min. p" 1b. 89.1 44.4
S2
3° ' Roast no. 188R 1911. '_
225-0 m. 1m. 6.2 1.5
20 /_ m». p91’ 1b. 19.5 19.5 _
//
1o / _-
, .
c I I I I I I I I I I I

1 2 s 4 5 s v a 9 1o
Time in hours
Figure 1. Time-temperature curves of round-bone chuck and standing rib
roasts from the same carcass cooked at oven temperatures of 125°C and 225°C
to an internal temperature of 80°C.

   
 

90 '— 225W 126W ——
ch20]? an» Chuck R-mp
80 —- ' -—-
*2 1o—- -
3
3
g so -— —
Q
é“
+> 50-“ -—
r4
E
g 4Q i V Chllﬁli 352$
5 Boast no. was 7oz m.
3o 125%; ’ Wt. lbs. 6.8 6.1 6.0
Min. per lb. 47.8 71,0 77,2
20 v _
Roast m. 77L 69.. 741'.
225'!) T-‘t, lbs. 6.7 6,3 7,3
1° 1 Nil» per 1b. .25‘? 1.9.5 15,5 .

1 2 z 4 s s 7 a
Time in hours
Figure 2. Time-temperature curves of standing rib, round-bone chuck,
and rump roasts from the same carcass cooked at oven temperatures of 125°C
and 225°C to an internal temperature of 80°C.

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND TIME OF COOKING

19

ature. One set of time-temperature curves for round-bone chuck roasts
and standing rib roasts from the same carcass is given in Figure 1.

The time-temperature curves for the rump roasts cooked by the 10W
oven temperature method, like those for the round-bone chuck roasts,

Figure 3.

temperature of 84 °C.

Figure 4.

carcass cooked at oven tern

temperature of 76 °C.

Inte rmtl temperature ‘C

Internal temperature ‘C

   

I I I I I
9O_ 22m Half-ham
80-—

'70-
60-
50?
4o-—
3o izs-c
/Roast no. 1251.
Wt. 111$. 9-8
2° m». 179215. 51.2
l0
I I I I I

l 2 3 4

Time in hours

5

Time-temperature curves of half-ham
same carcass cooked at oven temperatures of 125°C

roasts of pork from the
and 225°C to an internal

  
   
 

90
I I I I I
8° '— 225w lzs-c —
70-— --
60—- --
5g__ Leg of lamb __
4Q___ _
3Q 125°C 226°C ___
Roast no. 334R 33513
Wt. lbs. 4.6 4.7
2O Min. per 1b. 38.1 16.7 __..
1Q ——-
I I I I I
1 2 3 4 5

Time in hours

Time-temperature curves of leg of lamb roasts from the same

peratures of 125°C and 225°C to an internal

20 BULLETIN NO. 542, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

show a ﬂattening between the rare and well-done stages of cooking. One
set of curves for a rib, a chuck, and a rump roast from the same carcass
is given in Figure 2. The tenderness ratio of the rump roasts is signiﬁ-
cantly greater than that of the rib roasts (rump 0.9277 —— rib 0.6908 =
0.2369 —_l— 0.0403) but not signiﬁcantly lower than that of the chuck
roasts (chuck 0.9628 —- rump 0.9277 = 0.0351 i 0.0323).

The time-temperature curves for the half-ham roasts (Figure 3) re-
semble those for the rib roasts in shape. There is a slight difference in
tenderness response between the half-ham roasts of pork and the standing
rib roasts of beef, but it is not signiﬁcant (half-ham 0.7468 —- rib 0.6908
= 0.0560 i 0.0451).

The time-temperature curves for the leg of lamb roasts are even steeper
than are the corresponding curves for the rib roasts, showing only a
slight decrease in slope as cooking continues (Figure 4). The tenderness
ratio of the leg of lamb roasts is signiﬁcantly lower than that of the rib
roasts (rib 0.6908 —-— leg of lamb 0.5071 = 0.1837 i 0.0429).

As the curves for different roasts of the same cut were never identical,
scatter diagrams of the time-temperature observations have been given
in Figure 5 to bring out more clearly the similarity or dissimilarity
between the individual roasts of the same cut.

In Figure 5a are given scatter diagrams for one chuck roast and one
rib roast taken from each of 16 different animals and cooked at the low
oven temperature. As these data were selected so that a rib cut was
always matched with a chuck cut from the same animal, there is no
reason to suppose that the difference between the two cuts can be due
to variation either in the previous history of the animal or in the storage
of the carcass. The time-temperature observations for the 16 chuck
roasts are remarkably consistent. There can be little doubt that the
abrupt and decided ﬂattening of the curve observed in Figure 1 is a
cooking phenomenon typical of this cut and that such abrupt ﬂattening
is not a typical cooking phenomenon of the standing rib roasts.

A scatter diagram of the time-temperature observations for all of the
rum-p roasts cooked at the low oven temperature is given in Figure 5b.
It may be observed that the ﬂattening is not always as prolonged as it is
in the case of the round-bone chuck roasts.

In Figure 5c is given a scatter diagram of the time-temperature obser-
vations for all of the half-ham roasts cooked at the low oven temperature.
A scatter diagram of the time-temperature observations for all of the
leg of lamb roasts cooked at the low oven temperature is given in
Figure 5d.

It may be noted from these scatter diagrams that a decrease in slope
as the cooking continues appears to be rather closely related to an increase
in the tenderness ratios of the cuts. Abrupt ﬂattening of the time-

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND TIME OF QOOKING 21

   

 

 

 

I I I I I I I I I I A I I I I I I I
ao-— \   -.-- ao~— -   -
70-— —- 70—- —-—-
l)
gsm- ~— e0-—- - -~
T;
zw- — w- —
E"
g4o__ __ w__ , an» __
I;

E>$__. i.m___ i
D-I
2o » -— 2o-— —-
10 “- lozféi- —"
o I I I I I I I I I I 1"I I I I I I I
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 1 2 3 4 5 5 7
Time in hours Time in hours
w .
I I I I I I I I
BO—- __.
70- _..
96°— J22‘ --
5 ..
‘£50- .:' __
I)
O4
ﬁlwi y; __
"é Rump
$so_- __
‘é
F!
201 ___
10; _
o I I I I I I I I
1 2 a 4 s s 1 a 9
Timeinhoura
‘ 90
I I I I
I)
—— ao— ——
__. 7Q.__. i
s _ :>6o_. _
E E
 — ‘Ew- -
~ a
g __ §w__  __
- a
é’ __ §,,_ _
E E
__ gg__ Lamb __
1o§ —
D I I I I
9 1 2 3 4
Time in hour: Time in hours

Figure 5. Scatter diagrams of time~temperature observations for well-
done roasts cooked at an oven temperature of 125°C.

a. One chuck and one rib roast of beef from each of 16 different animals.
b. Nine rump roasts of beef.

c. Sixteen half-ham roasts of pork.

d. Fourteen leg of lamb roasts.

22 BULLETIN NO. 542, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

temperature curves is observed only in the round-bone chuck and the
rump roasts, the cuts having the highest tenderness ratios (09628,
0.9277). A middle group is composed of the half-ham and the rib roasts,
with time-temperature curves decreasing rather gradually in slope as
the cooking continues and with tenderness ratios of 0.7468 and 0.6908
respectively. The leg of lamb roasts show the steepest time-temperature

curves and have the lowest tenderness ratios (0.5071).

The cause of the ﬂattening of the time-temperature curves is not
known, but the ﬂattening affords evidence of either a chemical or physi-
cal change which is taking place between 65°C and 75°C and which is
accompanied by absorption of heat. Meat proteins coagulate at approxi-
mately these temperatures, liberating water of hydration. While the heat
required for the evaporation of this new supply of water might be expected
to cause an abrupt ﬂattening of the time-temperature curves, coagulation
of the proteins takes place also in other roasts where no such comparable
ﬂattening is observed. It is possible that the area of the cut surface of
the muscle is a factor or that the thick layer of fat covering the rib and
half-ham roasts either reduces the evaporation or provides fat which
when melted penetrates the lean below, increasing the normal rate of
heat penetration (21) and thereby tending to make the time-temperature
curves of such cuts steeper. It is doubtful, however, whether the last
explanation would hold for the leg of lamb roasts because their fat cover-
ing is no thicker than that of the ribs or half-hams and yet the time-
temperature curves of the leg of lamb roasts showed the least ﬂattening
of any cut. Some indication that volatile losses at the low oven tempera-
ture may be associated with the ﬂattening of the curve is given by a
comparison of the curves in Figure 5 with the mean volatile losses for
each cut: chuck 28.8, rump 21.6, rib 15.5, half-ham 15.2, and leg of
lamb 11.1. These means of the volatile losses could have been used with
more conﬁdence had the temperature, humidity, and length of storage
been_constant for all roasts (Table E in the supplementary tables).

Table 4. Comparison of the tenderness ratios of the “cuts with the diﬂference
between the two methods in the time required for cooking.

Difference in time of cooking

Tenderness
Cut of meat ratio
Total Per pound
' d/Cr* I Minutes Minutes
Round-bone chuck . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9628 11.3 370 57.3
Rump . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.9277 7.7 309 42.7
Half-ham . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0. 7468 6.2 195 19.8
Rib . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ' 0.690s 6.2 m 194. 23.2
0 2 V105 23.5

Leg of lamb . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0.5071 I

‘The deviation divided by its standard deviation. If this value is above 3, the
results are signiﬁcant.

From the shape of the cooking curves at the low oven temperature, it
was expected that the difference in the time of cooking between the two

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND TIME OF COOKING 23

methods might follow the same grouping as do the tenderness ratios.
Table 4 shows that this is true for the total time in the oven but is not
true when the cooking time is expressed as minutes per pound.

The ﬁndings with the well-done roasts made the possibility of a con-
nection between slower cooking and tenderness-response appear worthy
of further investigation, and so a second series of experiments was under-
taken in which rib and chuck roasts were cooked to an internal tempera-
ture of 63 °C——medium-rare according to Tables 1 and 4 by Sprague and
Grindley (20). This temperature is near the point at which the ﬂattening
of the time-temperature curves begins. If longer cooking between 65°C
and 75°C was responsible for the difference in tenderness-response of
the two cuts, when they were cooked well-done, only slight if any dif-
ference in tenderness-response would be expected if they were cooked
medium-rare. The curves for the high and low oven temperature methods
for each cut are also rather close at this point, and if a large diﬁerence
in cooking time is responsible for high tenderness ratios, it seemed doubt-
ful whether the tenderness ratios obtained from medium-rare roasts
would be high enough to show a signiﬁcant difference between the two
methods of cooking.

EXPERIMENTAL PROCEDURE FOR MEDIUM-RARE ROASTS

The procedures described for well-done roasts were followed for the
medium-rare roasts except in regard to the internal temperature at which
they were removed from the oven. Sprague and Grindley (20), and
Latzke (16), as well as other workers, have found that roasts of beef, if
removed from the oven before the well-done stage of cooking is reached,
will continue to rise in temperature for some time and may reach a
maximum internal temperature more than 10°C‘ above that at which
they were removed from the oven. This rise in temperature has been
reported (20) to depend upon the temperature of the oven, the internal
temperature of the roast when removed, and the size and shape of the
roast. No data were available to show at what iit-ernal temperatures
standing rib and round-bone chuck roasts should be removed from the
oven to reach a maximum of 663°C (medium-rare) when constant oven
temperatures of 125°C and 225°C were used. After several trials with
the standing rib roasts, 55°C was found to be a satisfactory internal
temperature for removal from the low temperature oven and 45°C from
the hightemperature oven. A maximum of 63°C could not be obtained
in every instance, but those roasts reaching maximum internal tempera-
tures of 60°C to 65°C were used for the palatability tests, as roasts
within this range were considered medium-rare. Table F in the supple-
mentary tables gives these data for the preliminary roasts as well as for
those roasts used in tests for palatability.

Removal from the oven to permit a maximum internal temperature of
approximately 63°C, while necessary to provide an equal degree of done-

internal temperature ‘C

 

24 BULLETIN NO. 542, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

ness in the paired rib roasts, is nevertheless open to the criticism that
the roasts in each pair were exposed unequally to the heat inﬂuence of
the oven as judged by the internal temperatures at the time of removal.
No practical way of getting around this diﬂiculty was found, as the cook-
ing time of each roast could not be predicted with sufficient accuracy to
permit cutting and judging immediately on removal at 63°C and before
a rise in internal temperature occurred. This criticism, ho-wever, is
apparently not so serious as might be supposed. In Figure 6 are given
representative time-temperature curves for the medium-rare rib roasts.

l

llll

Medium-rare rib roasvs

  
 

12w
($211.)

 

l

4

0
Time in ham-n

I

1

 

es of medium-rare rib roasts cooked at
and 225°C. The circles denote removal

Figure 6.
constant oven temperatures of 125°C
from the oven.

Time-temperature curv

It is obvious that no marked break in the slope of the curves occurs
after removal from the oven until about the time the maximum internal
temperature is reached. It may be observed also that the portion of the
curve due to the rise in internal temperature after removal from the
oven follows rather closely the shape of the curves at the same internal
temperatures for the rib roasts in Figures 1 and 2 where the roasts were
left in the oven during this part of the cooking. As the cooking at this
stage seems to proceed similarly whether the roast is in or out of the
oven, there 1's little necessity for the time-of-cooking factor, with which
we are particularly concerned in this experiment, to be regarded as a
source of error. Especially is this true in view of the fact that we are
concerned only with the portion of the roast Which closely surrounds the
bulb of the thermometer.

The round-bone chuck roasts were not such a problem, for their in-
ternal temperatures only rarely reached a maximum above the removal
temperature of 63°C (Table E in the supplementary tables).

The time-temperature relationships between the rib and chuck roasts
cooked at the high and low oven temperatures may, therefore, be accepted
as satisfying the conditions desired in this series of experiments.

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND TIME OF COOKING 25

RESULTS FROM MEDIUM-RARE ROASTS

Tenderness

Data from tests for tenderness of individual pairs of roasts are found
in the supplementary tables (Table G). The summarvy of these data in
Table 5 shows that:

1. While a slight majority of the paired judgments for the rib and
chuck roasts cooked to the medium-rare stage of doneness is in
favor of the constant low oven temperature method (125°C), it is
not signiﬁcant for either cut.

2. There is no signiﬁcant difference between the tenderness-response
of the two cuts.

3. The roasts cooked at the low oven temperature were only rarely
given the highest possible score-—5——for tenderness and only rarely
were those cooked at the high oven temperature given the lowest
score——1. (See columns headed “weighted adjectives”.)

While no statistical treatment was used with the scores obtained from
the weighted adjectives, it may be noted in Table 2 as well as in Table 6
that the mean scores for the round-bone chuck roasts are slightly higher
than those for the rib roasts. The impression is quite general that the
eye muscle of the rib easily ranks ﬁrst in tenderness in roasts, but in the
present work the triceps brachii of the round-bone chuck was found to
be at least as tender. Cline, Trowbridge, Foster, and Fry (10) reported
data in which the mean scores for the infraspinatus muscle from chuck I
roasts were slightly higher than the mean scores for the eye muscle of
rib roasts in 6 carcasses (Table 1). Perhaps the rib roasts have a repu-
tation for preeminence in tenderness to which they are not entitled.

The idea that rib roasts may be less tender than some other roasts
seemed so preposterous that tests were made to determine whether or
not some parts of the eye muscle might be more tender than others. The
eye muscle is divided into two parts in the region of the tenth rib by an
indentation of connective tissue and fat (if the carcass grade is high
enough). The part next to the spines is rather small in area compared
with that farthest away from the spines. Since two strips from each slice
were needed to furnish enough paired bites for the judges, both of them
had been cut from that part farthest away from the spines so that they
might be as close together as possible. The two slices from each roast,
therefore, had furnished one sample each for each judge. A third sample
was obtained by cutting only one strip from each of the two slices from
that part nearest the spines. All of the samples were used for judgments
by the paired-eating method but only the ﬁrst two were used for the
scores as given in Tables 2 and 5. Comparisons of the scores of the two
parts of the eye muscle (Table 6) show that the part nearest the spines
is somewhat more tender than the part farthest away and that it is also
somewhat more uniformly tender-—being scored below 3.5 (tender) only

 

26 BULLETIN NO. 542, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
Table 5. Summary of tests for tenderness
Number of
Ripen-
U. S. carcass Number ing 125°C
grade of period
pairs in days
Difference No
differ-
More ence
tender
' Slight Decided
9th, 10th, and 11th ribs
Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.3 35 25 10 9
Medium . . . . . . . . . .  8 7.9 34 18 16 16
Common . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.4 52 26 25 17
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 8.21 121 69 51 42
Round-bone chuck
Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8 .0 2S 21 3 17
Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 6.7 17 10 7 11
Common . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.8 30 22 7 19
Tota1....._ . . . . . . . .. 21 7.11 72 53 17

47 l

iMean of all roasts.

three times at 225°C and none at 125°C, while the part farthest away
from the spines was scored below 3.5 (tender) 9 times at 225°C and 5

times at 125°C.

Table 6. Comparison of the scores 0f the two parts of the eye muscle of
. rib roasts (medium-rare).
125°C 225°C
U. S.
carcass
grade Part farthest Part closest Part farthest Part closest
Roast away from to the Roast away from to the
number the spines spines number the spines spines
Choice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 343L 3.8 4.0 344R 4.0 3,6
346R 4.3 4.2 345L 3.3 4.4
379L 4.4 4.4 380R 5.0 4.6
Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 246R 2.1 3.6 245L 2.5 3,2
271L 3.0 4.7 272R 3.2 4.3
274R 3.5 4.3 2731, 1.8 2.7
327L 3.6 3.6 328R 3.3 3_2
330R 4.0 4.8 329L 3.6 4,4
Common . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 253L 3.3 4.0 254R 2 .9 3.3
256R 3.1 4.3 2S5L 1.6 2_3
275L 2.5 4.8 276R 3.3 4.8
278R 5.0 5.0 277L 4.6 5.0
3111. 3.6 3.7 312R 3.2 3.7
/ 314R 4.2 4.8 31st _ 4.1 4,2
I Mean 3.6 4.3 3.3 3.8

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND TIME OF COOKING 27

of medium-rare roasts of beef.

     

 

Tenderness
judgments by the paired-eating method
\Veighted
225°C For statistical treatment adjectives
average
' per roast
Difference More tender* De- Standard
Total Tender- viation deviation d _____.._______
More N ness d= ——- _
tender 125°C 225°C ratio N _V; 0'
Slight IDecided 11s nt ns/N Hs- 5- ‘ <1 — NPQ 12sec 22s°c
9th, 10th, and 11th ribs
31 20 11 75 39.5 35.5 4.3 4.2
38 22 16 88 42.0 46.0 3.0 3.1
31 20 11 100 60.5 39.5 3.7 3.3
100 62 38 I 263 142.0 121.0 0.5399 10.5 8.1 1.3 3.61 3.41
Round-bone chuck
l
2o 19 1 62' 33.5 28.5 4.7 4.6
20 11 9 48 22.5 25.5 3.8 3.9
19 12 7 68 39.5 28.5 3.7 3.7
59 42 17 178 95.5 82.5 0.5365 6.5 6.7 1.0 4.11 4.11

*To include judgments checked “no difference,” 0.5 is added to each of thi
two groups for each such judgment.
IMean of all roasts.

The more uniform tenderness of this small section may perhaps have
led to the popular impression of the preeminence of the eye muscle of
the rib in tenderness, but it is more likely due to lack of familiarity with
other tender muscles in the animal. A complete and satisfactory classi-
ﬁcation of muscles on the basis of tenderness has not yet been made. In
view of the startling indications obtained by Mitchell and Hamilton (19)
that certain muscles from exercised cattle were more tender than cor-
responding muscles from non-exercised cattle, the old explanation that
the toughness o-f tough muscles is due to their more frequent use seems
to need investigation.

. Time and Gas

Comparisons of the time and gas required for cooking the individual
medium-rare roasts at the two oven temperatures are given in the supple-
mentary tables (Table F“). The summary given in Table 7 shows that:

1. For the rib roasts the time in the oven (total time as Well as time
per pound) was longer for the low oven temperature method than
for the high oven temperature method. This was due in part to
slower cooking (Figure 6) and in part to the removal temperature
of these roasts which was 10°C higher than it was for the roasts
cooked at the high oven temperature.

28 BULLETIN NO. 542", TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table '7. Summary of removal temperatures, time, and gas required to obtain

l
Weight of roast
Number Ripening
Cut of meat U. S. carcass grade of pairs period
days
Grams Pounds
125°C

9th, 10th, and 11th ribs. Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 8.5 3866 8.5
Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8 7.9 3165 7.0

Common . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.4 3283 7.2

Mean of all roasts . . . . 22$ 8.2 3399 7.5

Round-bone chuck . . . . . . Good . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 8.0 3354 7.4
Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6 6.7 2537 5.6

Common . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.8 2638 5.8

Mean of all roasts . . . . 21$ 7.1 2848 6.3

225°C

9th, 10th, and 11th ribs. Good. . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 ‘8.5 3929 8.7
Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 7 .9 3042 6. 7

Common . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 8.4 3291 7.3

Mean of all roasts. . . .. 221 8.2 3375 7.4

Round-bone chuck .... . . Good . . . . . . . . .'. . . . . . . 7 8.0 3481 1. 7
Medium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 6. 7 2648 5 .9

Common . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 6.8 2681 5 .9

Mean of all roasts. . . .. 211 7.1 2940 6.5

tTotal.

2. For the rib roasts the time required to reach maximum temperature
was longer (total time as Well as time per pound) for the high
oven temperature method than for the low oven temperature meth-
od, but the rise in temperature averaged 183°C for the roasts
cooked at 225°C‘ and only 7.2°C for those cooked at 125°C.

3. The entire time required to produce medium-rare rib roasts was
longer (total time as well as time per pound) for the low oven
temperature method than for the high oven temperature method.

4. For the chuck roasts, the total time of cooking as Well as the time
per pound was longer for the low oven temperature method than
for the high oven temperature method.

5. For both the rib and the chuck roasts less gas was required for the
low oven temperature method than for the high oven temperature
method and the cost of the gas was less also.

Representative time-temperature curves for the medium-rare rib roasts
have been given in Figure 6. They show that both curves are rather
steep. Separate curves for the medium-rare chuck roasts were not given
because these roasts were removed from the oven at the medium-rare
stage of cooking and their time-temperature curves up to this point

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND TIME OF COOKING 29

medium-rare roasts of beef at constant oven temperatures of 125°C and 225°C.

Time in minutes
Internal temperature Ga5*
In oven To reach maximum
I
Initial Removal Maximum l Per Per Cubic Cost
°C °C °C Total I pound Total pound feet cents
125°C
6.8 55.0 61.7 176 20.8 40   
6.0 55.0 62.8 166 24.4 38 . . .
7.0 54.9 62.0 161 22.4 40 5.5 15.0 1.0
6.6 55.0 62.2 167 22.7 39 5.3 14.4 1.0
C
8.7 63.0 63.0 224 30.3 0  (1)1
8.8 63.0 63.0 173 31.4 0 ———— 2. .9
10.4 63.0 63.0 164 28.2 0 —-—— 13.1 0.9
9.4 63.0 63.0 186 29.8 0 —— 14.0 0.9
225°C
6.7 44.8 62.7 92 10.6 51 5.8 20.5 1.4
5.9 45.1 63.6 80 12.4 47 7.3 17.6 1.2
7.4 45.1 63.5 84 11.7 45 6.3 17.0 1.2
6.6 45.0 63.3 85 11.6 47 6.5 17.9 1.2
8.0 62.6 63.0 100 13.1 4 20.2 1.4
9.0 63.0 63.0 74 12.8 0 —-—— 14.7 1.0
9.4 63.3 63.5 78 13.2 3 ———i 16.4 1.1
8.8 63.0 63.2 84 13.0 2 ———- 17.0 1.1

*Preheating of ovens not included. In 30 tests, the preheating of the ovens
to 125°C averaged 5.4 cubic feet, costing $0.004. In 20 tests, the preheating
to 225°C averaged 11.8 cubic feet, costing $0.008. Cost of gas $0.675 per
1000 cubic feet.

(6‘3°C) would be similar to those already given in Figures 1, 2, and 5
for the well-done chuck roasts.

The difference between the two methods in the entire time required t0
produce medium-rare roasts is relatively small (rib 74 minutes, chuck
100 minutes) and is associated with low tenderness ratios (rib 0.5399,
chuck 0.5365). The medium-rare rib and chuck roasts, therefore, may
be included in the group with the leg of lamb roasts in Table 4.

DISCUSSION OF RESULTS

How tough or how tender the meat was before cookingvis not known,
but the fact that tender meat was not always obtained with the low oven
temperature method nor was tough meat always obtained with the high
oven temperature method agrees with the statement by Alexander (2)
that the standard method of roasting lamb did not destroy the individual-
ity of the samples. Alexander, using the 7-point grading chart, reported
individual roast scores which ranged from 3.00 (tough) to 5.80 (tender)
for the lower oven temperature method and from 3.00 (tough) to 5.00
(moderately tender) for the higher oven temperature method. In the
work with lamb at this station the scores for the individual roasts ranged

30 BULLETIN NO. 542, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

from 2.0 (tough) to 4.5 (very tender) for the 10w oven temperature
method and from 1.7 (tough) to 4.5 (very tender) for the high oven
temperature method on the basis of a 5-point grading chart, While a
direct comparison of the data from the two laboratories is not possible
because different grading charts were used, it is probable that as much
variation within one method has been found in this laboratory as in that
of Alexander.

The evidence obtained from these experiments concerning the rela-
tionship between oven temperature and tenderness may be stated brieﬂy
as follows:

1. The use of high or low oven temperatures produced roasts which
were scored uniformly neither “very tender” nor “very tough.”

2. While oven temperatures of 125°C and 225°C produced a signiﬁ-
cant difference in the tenderness of well-done rib, rump, and round-
bone chuck roasts of beef and half-ham roasts of pork, the same
oven temperatures failed to produce signiﬁcant differences in well-
done leg of lamb roasts or medium-rare rib and round-bone chuck
roasts of beef. These facts lead to the conclusion that oven temper-
ature per se is only one (if one) of the factors inﬂuencing tender-
ness in roasts.

3. Nor can the cooking of meat in a low temperature oven be defended
by the familiar statement that “high temperatures toughen pro-
tein”. In paired well-done round-bone chuck roasts cooked at high
and low oven temperatures, the tenderness-response was in favor
of the low oven temperature method (96%). The paired samples
from which these results were obtained were taken from the middle
of the roasts near the bulb of the thermometer and the internal
temperature in each ro-ast of the pair was the same (80°C).

The inconsistencies observed in trying to connect oven temperature and
tenderness are so great that some other explanation has been sought.
The suggestion that the difference in tenderness produced in the meat
cooked at high and low oven temperatures may have been due to the
different lengths of co-oking time required has received some support
from this investigation. The tenderness-response was highest in those
cuts in which the cooking to the well-done stage proceeded slowly at the
low oven temperature, but those were the cuts (chuck and rump) which
showed the most marked ﬂattening of the time-temperature curves and
which also sho-wed the greatest difference between the two methods in
the time required for cooking. The leg of lamb roasts in which the
cooking to the well-done stage proceeded relatively quickly at the low
oven temperature showed no signiﬁcant difference in tenderness between
the two methods of cooking. In addition, when rib and chuck cuts were
cooked medium-rare, a stage of cooking preceding that at which the
time-temperature curves for the well-done chuck roasts were markedly
ﬂattened and at which there is relatively only a small difference in cook-
ing time, there was no signiﬁcant difference in tenderness-response either
when high and low oven temperature methods were compared or when
rib and chuck cuts were compared. Thus the diﬁerences in tenderness,

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND TIME OF COOKING 31

which in these tests have appeared to be related to oven temperature,
seem to be explained in a more satisfactory manner on the basis of the
length of time required for cooking.

That the relationship between tenderness ratio and difference in total
time of cooking may not be a basic relationship is indicated by its failure
to hold for the individual roasts of any cut (Tables E and H of the sup-
plementary tables). But how much these variations may have been in-
ﬂuenced by the difference in the initial temperature of the roasts, it is
impossible to say. There is not sufﬁcient evidence to determine whether
an explanation of the effect of high and low o-ven temperatures on tender-
ness may be found in the difference in the total cooking time between the
two methods, irrespective of the internal temperatures at which the pro-
longed cooking takes place.

Is it possible that a suitable explanation of the effect o-f high and low
oven temperatures on tenderness of well-done meat may be found in the
length of cooking time available after an internal temperature of 65°C
has been reached? If so, perhaps it may be possible to control the rise
in internal temperature artiﬁcially so as to produce a high tenderness-
response in all cuts.

Is it possible that the chemical or the physical changes which are
responsible for causing the ﬂattening of the time-temperature curves may
also be concerned directly in tendering the meat? If this hypothesis is
assumed to be correct, then what are the chemical or physical changes
which take place? And can any means be devised to take full advantage
of them in producing tender roasts?

The answers to these questions may have great practical value as well
as add somewhat to our store of fundamental knowledge of what happens
during the cooking process. Investigations along these lines are now in
progress at this station.

ACKNOlVLEDGMEN TS

The author is much indebted to the other staff members who served
so faithfully as ofﬁcial judges: J. H. Knox, A. K. Mackey, D. S. Buch-
anan, and C. E. Murphey of the Department of Animal Husbandry of the
College; J. M. Jones, J. H. Jones, and S. P. Davis of the Division of Range
Animal Husbandry of the Experiment Station; Fred Hale of the Division
of Swine Husbandry of the Experiment Station; James Sullivan of the
Feed Control Service; J. C‘. Hotard, Chef-steward of the college mess
hall; Jessie Whitacre and Mary Anna Grimes of the Division of Rural
Home Research.

Grateful acknowledgment is made to the packing houses of Armour
and Company and of Swift and Company in Fort Worth, and to A. K.
Mackey and C. E. Murphey of the College for securing the detailed infor-
mation about the meat required by these experiments, and to Swift and
Company, A. K. Mackey, and C. E. Murphey for their care in cutting the
retail cuts according to the special directions.

The author is grateful to C. B. Godbey of the Genetics Department of
the College for help with the statistical analyses.

32 BULLETIN NO. 542, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

SUMMARY

In this study, the problem has been limited to only one of the factors
(oven temperature) which may have an inﬂuence on the problem of the
best method of cooking for the highest degree of palatability and to only
one of the factors of palatability (tenderness). The problem was limited
in this way in order to permit intensive study of the relationship between
oven temperature and tenderness.

In the ﬁrst series, the cuts were cooked well-done. They included the
9th, 10th, and 11th ribs, the round-bone chuck, and the rump roasts of
beef, the half-ham roasts of pork, and the leg of lamb roasts. In the
second series, the cuts Were cooked medium-rare. They included only
the 9th, 10th, and 11th ribs and the round-bone chuck roasts of beef.

The roasts in the ﬁrst series were cooked well-done at constant oven
temperatures of 125°C and 225°C. Carefully paired samples from 164
roasts were tested for tenderness by a committee of judges who used the
paired-eating method as well as a rating scale of adjectives.

The results from the paired-eating method show that the roasts fall
into three groups: ﬁrst, the roasts which showed the largest percentage
of judgments in favor of the low oven temperature method, round-bone
chuck 96% and rump 93 %; second, the roasts which showed a majority,
but a lower majority, of judgments in favor of the low oven temperature
method, half-ham 75% and rib 69 %; and third, the roasts which showed
no signiﬁcant majority in favor of the low oven temperature method,
leg of lamb 51%.

It was observed that the corresponding time-temperature curves for
each of these cuts fell into the same grouping as did their tenderness
results, the decrease in slope as the cooking continued being accentuated
in the chuck and rump roasts, being noticeable but not so pronounced in
the half-ham and rib roasts, and being only slightly noticeable in the
leg of lamb roasts.

The difference in total cooking time between the high and low oven
temperature methods, also, fell into the three groups: chuck 370 min-
utes and rump 309 minutes; half-ham 195 minutes and rib 194 minutes;
and leg of lamb 105 minutes.

These observations suggested that the results for tenderness were due
to the longer time of cooking and not to oven temperature per se.
Accordingly, a second series of experiments were started in which 22 rib
and 21 chuck roasts were cooked at constant oven temperatures of 125°C‘
and 225°C so as to provide an internal temperature of 63°C (medium-
rare), a point on the time-temperature curve preceding the accentuated
decrease in slope shown by the well-done chuck, roasts and a point at
which the difference in cooking time between the two cuts is relatively
small. At this point, also, the curves for the two methods of cooking for
each cut are fairly close. The results show that there was no signiﬁcant

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND TIME OF COOKING 33

difference in tenderness either between the two cuts or between the two
methods 0f cooking.

The evidence presented points to a relationship between tenderness
and slow cooking. The differences in tenderness, which in these tests
have appeared to be related to oven temperature, seem to be explained in
a more satisfactory manner on the basis of the length of time required
for cooking.

More work needs to be done before anyone is able to recommend proc-
esses of cooking which will uniformly produce tender roasts. Present
knowledge would indicate, however, that a housewife will have a better
chance of obtaining a tender roast if she cooks it at a low oven tempera-
ture than if she cooks it at a high oven temperature.

LITERATURE CITED

1. Alexander, Lucy M. 1927. Correlating cooking research with factors which
influence the quality and palatability of meat. American Society 0f
Animal Production Proceedings. Pages 258-260.

Alexander, Lucy M. 1929. Report on the cooking of meat. American So-
ciety of Animal Production Proceedings. Pages 117-118.

3. Alexander, Lucy M. 1932. Cooperative Meat Investigations. Summary of
results of cooking meats. American Society of Animal Production
Proceedings. Pages 303-311.

4. Animal Husbandry Division, Bureau of Animal Industry, U. S. D. A.
1927. National Cooperative Project. A study of the factors which in-
ﬂuence the quality and palatability of meat. Revised edition. Issued
for the cooperators.

5. Animal Husbandry Division Bureau of Animal Industry, U. S. D. A.
1928. National Cooperative Project. A study of the factors which in-
ﬁuence the quality and palatability of meat. Supplement to revised
edition.

6. Cline, Jessie Alice, Cover, Sylvia, and Whipple, Bertha K. 1930. Methods
of roasting beef. Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin
285. Pages 81-83.

7. Cline, Jessie Alice and Foster, Ruth. 1933. The effect of oven temperature
on beeg roasts. Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 328.
Page 3 .

8. Cline, Jessie Alice, Loughead, Mary Esther., Schwartz, Bessie C. 1932.
The effect of two roasting temperatures on palatability of cooking
roasts. Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 310. Pages
39- 0.

9. Cline, Jessie Alice, and Swenson, Alma C. 1934. The roasting of beef,
lamb, and pork. Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin
340. Pages 58-59.

10. Cline, Jessie Alice, Trowbridge, E. A... Foster, M. T., and Fry, Hazel Eli-
nor. 1930. How certain methods of cooking affect the quality and pal-
azttability of beef. Missouri Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin

93.

11. Cover, Sylvia. 1929. A study to determine the best method for roasting a
chuck cut of beef. Unpublished thesis. University of Missouri.

12. Cover, Sylvia. 1936. A new subjective method of testing tenderness in
meat-—the paired eating method. Food Research 1:287-295.

13. Grindley, H. S., and Mojoinier, Timothy. 1904. Experiments on losses in
cooking meat. U.S.D.A. Office of Experiment Stations Bulletin 141.

14. Kansas Station. 1934-35. Relation of _method of cooking to quality and
palatability of meat. National Livestock and Meat Board Twelfth
Annual Report. Pages 69-70.

15. Kansas Station. 1935-36. The relation of method of cooking to quality and
palatability of meat. National Livestock and Meat Board Thirteenth
Annual Report. Page 80.

34

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.
21.

BULLETIN NO. 542, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Latzke, Esther. 1930. Standardizing methods of roasting beef in experi-
inentazhigzookery. North Dakota Agricultural Experiment Station Bul-
etin

Lehmann, K. B. 1907. Studien iiber die Zéihigkeit des Fleisches und ihre
Ursachen. Archiv fiir Hygiene. 63:134-179.

Mitchell, H. H.., and Beadles, Jessie R. 1930. The paired-feeding method
in nutrition experiments and its application to the problem of cystine
deﬁciencies in food proteins. J. Nutr. 21225-243.

Mitchell, H. H., and Hamilton, T. S. 1933. Effect of long continued muscu-
lar exercise upon the chemical composition of the muscles and other
tissues of beef cattle. J. of Agri. Research 46:917-941.

Sprague, E. C., and Grindley, H. S. 1907. A precise method of roasting
beef. The University Studies, University of Illinois. 2:285-321.

Thille, Mary, Williamson, Lucille J., and Morgan, Agnes Fay. 1932. The
effect of fat on shrinkage and speed in the roasting of beef. J. of H.
Econ. 24:720-733.

Tippett, L. H. C. 1931. The Methods of Statistics. An introduction mainly
{or dworkers in the Biological Sciences. Wiliams and Norgate, Ltd.
on on.

, nu: orcooxmc

m

"anger or r:
Subpleﬂieﬂ

36 BULLETIN NO. 542, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table A. Data from tests for tenderness o‘! individual pairs of roasts

Roast
Carcass Number
Ripen-
ing 125°C
period
in
U. S. Weight days Difference
Grade pounds 125°C 225°C
More
tender
Slight Decided
9th, 10th, and 11th ribs

Prime . . . . . . . . . 600-700 10 233L 234R 2 2 0
Choice . . . . . . . . . 500—600 11 38R 37L 15 —- ——
11 59L 60R 6 —- —-—
10 67L 68R 5 —— —
10 72R 71L 9 —— —
10 99L 100R 0 — --
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 -— —-
400-500 10 29L 30R 4 —- -
11 39L 40R 14 —- ——
10 58R 57L 4 — —-
11 65L 66R 0 —— —-
10 78R 77L 12 — —
10 98R 97L 11 — —-
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 -— —-
Good . . . . . . . . . . 500—6OO 10 184R 183L 3 3 0
10 185L 186R 9 7 1
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 10 1
Medium . . . . . . . 500-600 11 152 R 151L 0 0 0
11 176R 1 75 L 6 4 2
10 200R 199L 7 6 1
10 201L 202R 8 5 3
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 15 6
300-400 11 177L 178R 6 4 2
Common . . . . . . . 500—600 10 192R 191L 8 5 3
1O 193L 194R 6 2 4
11 212 R 21 1 L 8 3 5
11 2 1 3L 214R 6 6 0
10 220R 219L 12 4 8
1O 221L 222 R 3 3 0
Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 23 20
400-500 11 153L 154R 4 4 0

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND TIME OF COOKING 37

of beef cooked to an internal temperature of 80°C (well-done).

   

Tenderness
Number of judgments by paired eating method
_ Weighted
225°C For statlstical treatment adjectives
average
per roast
No Difference Total More tender
differ- N ____._._
ence More Ratio
tender _ _ 125°C 225°C ns/N
Shght I Decxded "s nt 125°C 225°C
9th, 10th, and 11th ribs

3 3 3 0 8 3.5* 4.5* 0.4375 3.8 3.9
0 O —- —— 15 15.0 0.0 3.8 3.2
0 0 — —- 6 6.0 0.0 2.7 2.0
2 2 -—- — 9 6.0 3.0 3.1 2.8
2 4 —— —- 15 10.0 5.0 2.6 2.8
2 1O —— — 12 1.0* 11.0* 3.7 4.0
6 16 —— —— 57 38.0 19.0 0.6667 3.21 3.01
1 7 —— -—— 12 4.5* 7.5* 3.3 3.6
1 0 -—- — 15 14.5 0.5 4.0 3.7
1 1 —- — 6 4.5 1.5 3.3 3.0
2 7 —- —- 9 1.0* 8.0* 2.7 3.0
0 0 -—- -—- 12 12.0 0.0 4.0 2.8
0 0 —— — 11 11.0 0.0 4.0 3.7
s 15 - - 65 47.5 17.5 0.7307 3.61 3.31:’-
2 5 2 3 1O 4.0* 6.0* 3.2 3.6
1 0 0 0 10 9.5 0.5 4.6 4.2
3 5 2 3 20 13.5 6.5 0.6750 3.91 3.91-
O 8 7 1 8 0.0* 8.0* 3.6 3.9
2 0 O 0 8 7.0 1.0 4.3 3.5
3 0 0 O 10 8.5 1.5 2.2 1.8
0 2 2 0 10 8.0 2.0 3.3 2.3
5 10 9 1 36 23.5 12.5 0.6528 3.41 2.911
0 2 2 0 8 6.0 2.0 0.7500 3.9 3.3
0 0 0 O 8 8.0 0.0 2.3 1.6
0 2 2 0 8 6.0 2.0 3.5 2.8
1 1 1 O 1O 8.5 1.5 3.5 2.8
1 2 1 1 9 6.5 2.5 3.4 3.3
0 3 1 0 15 12.0 3.0 1.8 1.3
1 6 4 1 1O 3.5* 6.5* 1.5 1.4
3 14 9 2 60 44.5 15.5 0.7417 2.71 2.21
1 3 3 0 8 4.5 3 5 0.5625 4.4 4.6

*The majority of the paired judgments in this roast were in favor of high
oven temperature. These roasts were apparently distributed in random
manner in all of the groups of rib roasts.

iMean.

38 BULLETIN NO. 542, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table A. Data from‘ tests for tenderness of individual pairs of roasts o1

Roast
Carcass Number
Ripen-
ing 125°C
period
in
U. S. Weight days Diﬁerence
Grade pounds 125°C 225°C
More
tender
Slight Decided
Chuck

Prime . . . . . . . . . 600-700 10 231L 233R 8 4 4
Choice . . . . . . . . . 500-600 7 52R 51L 10 —- ——
14 80R 79L 8 - -—-

6 92R 91.L 8 —- —-

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 - -—-

400-500 6 70R 69L 10 —- -

Good . . . . . . . . . . S00-600 9 180R 179L 8 6 2
9 181L 182R 8 6 2

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 12 4

Medium . . . . . . . 500-600 9 195L 196R 10 5 5
9 198R 197L 10 1 9

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 6 14

300-400 10 171L 172R S 5 0

10 174R 173L 8 5 3

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10 3

Common . . . . . . . 500-600 9 187L 188R 8 1 6
9 190R 189L 8 2 6

9 207L 208R 10 2 8

9 210R 209L 10 0 9

9 215L 216R 6 4 2

9 218R 217L 6 3 3

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 12 34

Rump

Choice . . . . . . . . . 500-600 9 28R 27L 9 -- —-
10 33L 34R 10 — -

10 56R 55L 10 —- —

9 64R 63L 9 -- --

13 76R 75L 8 —- -

9 96R 95L 4 -— —

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50 —- —-

400-500 10 36R 35L 9 —- -

9 73L 74R 8 —- —

9 94R 93L 8 — ——

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2S —- -

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND TIME OF CQOKING

beet cooked to an internal temperature of 80°C (well-donﬂ-Continued.

39

Tenderness

Number of judgments by paired eating method

 

IMean.

_ _ Weighted
225°C For statistical treatment adjectives
v average
perroast
No Difference Total More tender
diﬂer- N
ence More Ratio
tender 125°C 225°C ns/N
Slight Decided 11s nt 125°C 225°C
Chuck

0 0 0 0 8 .0 0.0 1.0000 5.0 4.4

0 4 — —- 14 10.0 4.0 3.6 3.6

0 0 — —— 8 8.0 0.0 4.0 3.8

0 0 —- -— 8 8.0 0.0 4.0 4.0
0 4 —- — 30 26.0 4.0 0.8667 3.91 3.81

0 0 —-— — 10 10.0 0.0 1.0000 4.0 4.0
0 0 0 0 s 8.0 0.0 3.8 3.4‘

0 0 0 0 8 8.0 0.0 » 4.1 3.8
0 0 0 0 16 16.0 0.0 1.0000 4.01 3.61

0 0 0 0 10 10.0 0.0 4.2 3.0

0 0 0 0 10 10.0 0.0 4.0 2.8
0 0 0 0 20 20.0 0.0 1.0000 4.11 2.91

- 3 0 0 0 8 6.5 1.5 4.1 4.1

0 0 O 0 8 8.0 0.0 4.5 3.8
3 0 0 0 16 14.5 1.5 0.9063 4.312 4.01

0 0 0 0 8 8.0 0.0 4.1 2.9

0 0 0 0 8 8.0 0.0 4.1 2.9

0 0 0 0 10 10.0 0.0 4.4 2.4

0 0 O 0 10 10.0 0.0 4.9 3.4

0 0 O 0 6 6.0 0.0 4.3 3.2

0 0 0 0 6 6.0 0.0 ‘4.5 3.2
0 0 0 0 48 48.0 0.0 1.0000 4.41 3.01

Rump

0 0 — — 9 9.0 0.0 4.0 3.9

0 O -—- — 10 10.0 0.0 3.5 2.6

2 0 —— — 12 11.0 1.0 4.0 3.6

1 0 —— -— 10 9.5 0.5 4.0 3.4

0 0 —— —— 8 8.0 0.0 4.0 2.6

0 4 —- — 8 4.0 4.0 3.0 2.6
3 4 — -—- 57 51.5 5.5 0.9035 3.81 3.11

1 0 —- ~—- 10 9.5 0.5 3.6 2.9

0 0 —— —- 8 8.0 0.0 3.5 2.8

0 0 -—- —— 8 8.0 0.0 3.4 2.1
1 O ——- -— 26 25.5 0.5 0.9808 3.512 2.61

40 BULLETIN NO. 542, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table B. Data from tests for tenderness of individual pairs of half-ham

Roast
e _ numbers
Chxlled Ripen- _
carcass ing 125°C
Ration welgnt period
1n 1n
DOIIIIdS da-YS Difference
125°C 225°C More
tender
Slight Decided

Garbage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156 7 121L 122R 5 5 0
Woods raised, garbage . . . . . . . . . . 125 7 124R 1231- 2 2 0
Garbage, grain last 2 months . . . 197 3 125L 126R 11 10 1
Garbage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 196 8 123R 127L 7 5 2
T k , k ﬁ , and cottonseed 151T 7 131L 132R 3 1 1
a§1e:1g:*..2.‘.1: .............. . . 13*" 1 1331. 134R 3 3 o

- 102 7 156R 155L 7 3 4
Railrtilgrrrltitigﬁgkgfrfl.  . . . . . . . . . . . 171 1 158R 1511. 4 1 s
Garbage .................... . . 185 1 30314 304R 7 s 2
Garbage .................... . . 171 1 306R 3051, 10 s s
Garbage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18° 6 319L 320R 1 6 1
Garbage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 199 6 322R 321L 9 4 5
Garbage .................... . . 171 1 sssb 333R 10 s 2
Garbage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ., 170 7 338R 337L 12 7 » 5
Tankage, kaﬁr, and corn. . . . . . . . 159 6 3S1L 352R 0 0 0
155 6 354R 3531. 1 2 s

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..--------.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - - . . .... 104 67 36

"Litter mates.
***Litter mates.
TWarm weight of carcass.

 

 

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND TIME OF COOKING 41
roasts of pork cooked to an internal temperature of 84°C (well-done).
Tenderness
Number of judgments by paired eating method
Weighted
adjectives
225°C For statistical treatment average
per roast
No Difference Total More tender
diﬁer- N
ence More Ratio
tender 125°C 225°C ns/N
Slight Decided 11s I11; 125°C 225°C
3 3 3 0 11 6.5 4.5 3.0 3.0
1 9 8 1 12 2 5* 9.5* 4.4 4.7
0 1 1 0 12 11.0 1.0 3.7 3.2
0 1 1 0 3 7.0 1.0 3.4 2.8
1 0 0 0 4 3.5 0.5 3.8 3.3
1 0 0 0 4 3.5 0.5 2.8 2.5
0 O O 0 7 7.0 0.0 3.4 2.8
2 2 0 2 3 5.0 3.0 2.8 2.5
0 3 2 1 10 7.0 3.0 4. 1 3.8
0 0 0 0 10 10.0 0.0 3.2 2.1
3 2 2 0 12 8.5 3.5 4.0 3.7
3 0 0 0 12 10.5 1.5 3.9 3.0
5 0 0 0 1s 12.5 2.5 4.1 3-5
2 0 0 0 14 13.0 1.0 3.2 2-4
4 6 2 4 10 2.0* s.0* 4.0 4-5
0 0 0 0 7 7.0 0.0 3.7 2.4
25 27 19 8 1S6 116.5 39.5 0.7468 3.61 3.111

‘The majority of the paired judgments

high oven temperature.

tMean.

in these roasts were in favor of the

42 BULLETIN NO. 542, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table C. Data from tests for tenderness of individual pairs of leg

Roast
Carcass Numbers
Ripen-
ing 125°C
period
in
Weight days Difference
Grade pounds 125°C 225°C
More
tender
Slight Decided

Choice . . . . . . . . . 46 7 203L 204R 4 3 1
54 7 206R 205L 0 0 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 3 1

Good . . . . . . . . . . — 7 144R 143L 8 6 2
-— 7 145L 146R 2 1 1

36 7 287L 288R 3 1 2

38 7 290R 289L 3 3 0

34 7 31$L 316R 9 7 2

38 7 318R 3171, 7 5 2

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 23 9

Medium . . . . . . . 29 6 299L 300R 4 0 4
3O 6 302R 301L 3 1 2

34 6 331L 332R 1 0 1

38 6 334R 333L 6 4 2

39 7 347 L 348R 3 2 1

40 7 350R 349L 4 4 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 11 10

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND TIME OF COOKING 43

of lamb roasts cooked to an internal temperature of 76°C (well-done).

Tenderness

Number of judgments by paired eating method

‘Majority of the paired judgments in these roasts were in
oven temperature.

tMean.

Weighted
225°C For statistical treatment adjectives
average
per roast

No Difference Total More tender

diﬁer- N

ence More Ratio

tender 125°C 225°C ns/N
Slight Decided "s Ht 125°C 225°C

2 0 0 0 6 5.0 1.0 3.8 3.5
2 4 4 0 6 1.0* 5.0* 4.5 4.5
4 4 4 0 12 6.0 6.0 0.37000 4.21 4.01
1 3 2 1 12 8.5 3.5 2.3 1.9
0 8 5 3 10 2.0* 8.0* 2.1 2.7
0 3 2 1 6 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0
1 2 1 1 6 3.5 2.5 2.3 2.3
8 2 2 0 19 13.0 6.0 4.0 3.6
2 6 3 3 15 8.0 7.0 2.5 2.6
12 24 15 9 68 38.0 30.0 0.5588 2.51 2.51

_ 1 1 1 0 6 4.5 1.5 2.5 1.7
0 3 2 1 6 3.0 3.0 2.5 2.3
2 9 5 4 12 2.0* 10.0* 2.5 3.3
3 3 2 1 12 7.5 4.5 2.6 1.8
2 7 4 3 12 4.0* 8.0* 2.2 3.2
4 4 2 2 12 6.0 6.0 4.0 4.0
12 27 16 11 60 27.0 33.0 0.4500 2.71 2.71

favor of the high

 

BULLETIN NO. 542, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

44
Table D. The time and gas required to cook roasts well-done
Carcass 125°C
Ripen- Weight Internal Time in oven
ing of roast temperature minutes
Chilled Class period
U. S. weight in Roast
grade pounds days number Re-
Grams Pounds Initial moval Total Per
°C ° pound
9th, 10th, and 11th ribs of beef

Prime . . . . . . . 630 Steer . . . . . . 10 233L 5335 11.8 6 80 435 36.9
Choice . . . . . . . 500-600 Steer . . . . . . 11 38R 4292 9 . 5 8 80 439 46 . 2
— 11 59L 3509 7. 7 8 80 307 39 .9

Steer . . . . . . 10 67L 3692 8.1 6 80 325 40.1

Steer . . . . . . 10 72R 3896 8.6 6 80 356 41.4

Steer . . . . . . 10 99L 3674 8.1 7 80 310 38.3

400-500 Steer . . . . . . 10 29L 3460 7.6 7 8O 340 44. 7

Heifer. . . . . 11 39L 4297 9.5 6 80 395 41.6

-- 10 58R 3506 7. 7 8 80 340 44.1

Heifer. . . .. 11 65L 3300 7.3 6 80 290 39.7

Steer . . . . . . 10 78R 3075 6.8 8 80 325 47.8

Steer . . . . . . 10 98R 3348 7.4 7 80 348 47.0

Good . . . . . . . . 594 Steer . . . . . . 10 184R 4795 10.6 4 80 415 39.2

564 Steer . . . . . . 10 185L 4717 10.4 5 80 383 36.8

Medium . . . . . 500-600 Cow . . . . . . 11 152R 5565 12.3 7 80 410 33.3

Steer . . . . . . 10 200R 4287 9.5 2 80 392 41.3

Steer . . . . . . 10 201L 4100 9 .0 2 80 410 45 .6

345 Steer . . . . . . 11 177L 2670 5 .9 6 80 267 45 .3

Common. . . . . 500-600 Steer . . . . . . 10 192R 3287 7.2 1 80 320 44.4

Steer . . . . . . 10 193L 4502 9.9 1 80 366 37.0

Steer . . . . . . 11 212R 3623 8.0 0 80 395 49 .4

Steer....._. 11 213L 3340 7.4 1 80 285 38.5

Steer . . . . . . 10 220R 3850 8.5 5 80 348 40.9

Steer . . . . . . 10 221L 3052 6.7 7 80 286 42.7

430 COW . . . . .. 11 153L 3152 ~ 6.9 9 80 360 52.2

Mean.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.4 . . . . . .. 3853 8.5 5.3 80 354 42.2

Round-bone chuck of beef

Prime . . . . . . . 630 Steer . . . . . . 10 231L 3977 8.8 8 80 455 51 . 7

Choice . . . . . . 500-600 -- 7 52R 2874 6.3 10 80 414 65.7

Steer . . . . .. 14 80R 2779 6.1 8 80 319 52 .3

Steer . . . . . . 6 92R 2947 6.5 8 80 457 70.3

400-500 Steer . . . . . . 6 70R 2750 6. 1 8 80 433 71 .0

Good . . . . . . . . 594 Steer . . . . . . 9 180R 3423 7.5 7 80 561 74.8

564 Steer . . . . . . 9 181L 3368 7.4 6 80 490 66.2

Medium. . . . . 593 Steer . . . . . . 9 195L 3678 8.1 8 80 615 75 .9

587 Steer . . . . . . 9 198R 3147 6.9 7 80 565 81.9

322 Steer . . . . . . 10 171L 2475 5.5 6 80 455 82.7

345 S-teer . . . . . . 10 174R 2546 5.6 6 80 502 89.6

Common.... . 512 Steer . . . . . . 9 187L 2912 6.4 8 80' 570 89.1
579 Steer. . . . . 9 190R 2973 6.6 8 80 556 84.2
521 Steer . . . . . . 9 207L 3250 7 . 2 5 80 618 85 . 8

575 Steer . . . . .. 9 210R 3105 6.8 5 80 517 76.0

520 Steer . . . . . . 9 215L 2511 5.5 2 80 473 86.0

503 Steer . . . . . . 9 218R 2475 5.5 4 80 451 82 .0

Mean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.0 . . . . . .. 3011 6.6 6.7 80 497 75.6

 

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND TIME OF COOKING 45
at constant oven temperatures of 125°C and 225°C.
225°C
Weight Internal Time in oven
Gas* of roast temperature minutes Gas*
Roast
number
Cubic Cost Grams Pounds Initial Removal Total Per Cubic Cost
feet cents °C °C pound feet cents
9th, 10th, and 11th ribs of beef
33.5 2 3 234R 5592 12.3 2 8O 217 17.6 45.2 3.1
—— — 37L 4417 9.7 6 80 180 18.6 —- —-
-— -— 60R 3553 7.8 10 so 135 17.3 —— —-
—— — 68R 3767 8.3 8 80 160 19.3 —- ——-
-— —— 71L 3581 7.9 6 80 156 19.7 —- -—
—— —— 100R 3923 8.6 8 80 176 20.5 —— ——-
—— —- 30R 3526 7.8 7 80 155 19.9 — —-
—— -—- 40R 4179 9.2 -— 80 186 20.2 ——— —-
—— —— 57L 3700 8.2 9 80 156 19.0 — —-
—- —— 66R 3133 6.9 8 80 135 19.4 —— —
—— -— 77L 3041 6. 7 8 80 139 20. 7 —- —
—— -——— 97L 3530 7.8 8 80 1S9 20.4 —- —-
32.8 2.2 183L 5082 11.2 6 80 197 17.6 43.0 2.9
29.3 2.0 186R 4336 9.6 5 80 168 17.5 34.2 2.3
-- -— 151L 4778 10.5 9 80 185 17.6 — ——-
31.1 2.1 199L 3958 8.7 2 80 177 20.3 36.7 2.5
31.5 2.1 202R 4770 10.5 0 80 173 16.5 36.5 2.5
20.2 1.4 178R 2441 5.4 4 80 113 20.9 22.9 1.5
26.0 1.8 191L 3395 7.5 3 80 146 19.5 31.5 2.1
29.5 2.0 194R 4032 8.9 5 80 155 17.4 32.1 2.2
31.6 2.1 211L 4011 8.8 0 8O 180 20.5 40.1 2.7
22.9 1.5 214R 3469 7.6 2 80 145 19.1 32.0 2.2
28.1 1.9 219L 3974 8.8 5 80 168 19.1 35.3 2.4
19.4 1.3 222R 3121 6.9 6 80 129 18.7 26.7 1.8
-— —- 154R 3091 6.8 11 8o 120 17.6 —- ——
28.0 1.9 . . . . . . . . . . .. 3856 8.5 5.8 80. 160 19.0 34.7 2.4
Round-bone chuck of beef
37.7 2.5 232R 4548 10.0 8 80 120 12.0 27.8 1.9
-— -— 51L 3814 8.4 8 80 131 15.6 -— —-
—- -— 79L 3562 7.8 8 8o 124 15.9 —— ——-
—— — 91L 3463 7.6 8 80 1,25 16.4 —— ——-
—— -—— 69L 2879 6.3 8 80 125 139.8 —— ——
4_3.9 3.0 179L 3579 7.9 10 80 119 15.1 26.4 1.8
38.5 2.6 182R 3265 7.2 6 80 129 17.9 27.8 1.9
——- -.—— 196R 3467 7.6 6 80 140 18.4 ——- ——-
43.5 2.9 197L 3391 7.5 7 80 138 18.4 29.3 2.0
34.3 2.3 172R 2626 5.8 8 80 12-‘9 22.2 27.1 1.8
37.4 2.5 173L 2510 5.5 5 80 119 21.6 23.5 1.6
——- -- 188R 2800 6.2 7 80 115 18.5 — ——
42.0 2.8 189,1, 3188 7.0 6 80 133 19.0 27.8 1.9
47.6 3.2 208R 2567 5.7 6 80 120 21.1 25.4 1.7
—— -— 209_L 3375 7.4 7 80 144 19.5 -— ———
37.0 2.5 216R 2687 5.9 4 80 123 20.8 26.5 1.8
35.1 2.4 217L 2677 5.9 6 80 116 19.7 25.7 1.7
39.7 2.7 . . . . . . . . . . .. 3200 7.0 6.9 80 126 18.3 26.7 1.8

‘Preheating of ovens not included.

 

46 BULLETIN NO. 542, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION
Table D. The time and gas required to cook roasts well-done
Carcass \ 125°C
Ripen- Weight Internal Time in oven
ing of roast temperature minutes
Chilled Class period
U. S. weight in Roast
grade pounds days number Re- "
Grams Pounds Initial moval Total Per
l °C °C pound
Rump of beef

Choice . . . . . . . 500-600 Steer . . . . . . 9 28R 3603 7 .9 8 80 468 59.2
Steer. . . . .. 10 33L 3894 8.6 7 80 485 56. 4

— 1O 56R 3323 7.3 8 8O 335 45.9

Steer . . . . . . 9 64R 3215 7 . 1 7 80 419 59.0

Steer . . . . . . 13 76R 3627 8.0 8 80 483 60.4

Steer . . . . . . 9 96R 3512 7.7 8 80 385 50.0

400-500 Heifer. . . . . 10 36R 3382 7.5 6 80 375 50.0

Steer . . . . . . 9 73L 2744 6.0 7 80 463 77. 2

Steer . . . . . . 9 94R 3450 7 . 6 8 80 489 64.4

Mean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.8 . . . . . .. 3417 7.5 7.4 80 434 58.1

Half-ham of pork

202 Barrow 7 156R 4986 11.0 7 84 461 41 .9

172 Gilt . . . . . . . 7 158R 4905 10.8 7 84 408 37.8

1511‘ Barrow 7 131L 4107 9.1 4 84 337 37.0

1301‘ Barrow 7 133L 3777 8.3 6 84 294 35.4

197 Barrow . . 8 125L 4432 9.8 4 84 36S 37.2

196 Barrow. . . . 8 128R 4618 10.2 6 84 356 34.9

156 Barrow. . .. 7 121L 3975 8.8 1 84 359 40.8

125 Gilt . . . . . . . 7 124R 3314 7.3 O 85 358 49.0

185 Barrow. . . . 7 303L 5533 12 . 2 7 84 443 36.3

171 Barrow. . . . 7 306R 5203 11.5 4 84 40S 35.2

186 Barrow 6 319L 5847 12.9 10 84 470 36.4

199 Gilt . . . . . . . 6 322R 5046 11.1 9 84 390 35.1

171 Gilt . . . . . . . 7 335L 4946 10.9 6 84 441 40. 5

170 Barrow 7 338R 5465 12.0 4 84 393 32.8

159 Barrow 6 351L 4529 10. 0 6 84 434 43 .4

155 Barrow 6 354R 4132 9.1 7 84 363 39 .9

Mean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.9 . . . . . .. 4676 10.3 5.5 84 392 38.4

Leg of lamb

Choice . . . . . . . 46 Wether. . . . 7 203L 2215 4.9 6 77 231 47.1
54 Wether. . .. 7 206R 2761 6.1 3 76 272 44. 6

Good . . . . . . . . ——- Wether 7 144R 1997 4.4 8 76 178 40.5
—-— Ewe . . . . .. 7 145L 2426 5.3 10 76 222 41.9

36 Wether 7 287L 2111 4.7 11 _ 76 195 41.5

38 Wether 7 290R 2161 4.8 6 76 189 39.4

34 Ewe . . . . .. 7 315L 1622 3.6 9 76 155 43. 1

38 Ewe . . . . .. 7 318R 1615 3.5 12 76 145 41.4

Medium. . . . . 29 Wether 6 299L 1646 3.6 11 76 18S 51.4
30 Wether 6 302R 1712 3.8 10 76 179 47.1

34 Wether 6 331L 1915 4.2 12 76 185 44. 1

38 Wether .. 6 334R 2141 4. 7 11 76 179 38.1

39 Wether. . .. 7 347L 2439 5.4 10 76 221 40.9

40 Wether 7 350R 2156 4.7 10 76 200 42.6

Mean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.7 . . . . . .. 2066 4.6 9.2 76 195 43.1

TWarm weight

of carcass.

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND TIME OF COOKING 47
at constant oven temperatures of 125°C and 225°C—Continued.
225°C
Weight Internal Time in oven
Gas* of roast temperature minutes Gas*
-— Roast
number
Cubic Cost Grams Pounds Initial Removal Total Per Cubic Cost
feet cents °C °C pound feet cents
Rump of beef
-— -— 27L 3731 8.2 8 80 12s 15.2 -— --
—- -— 34R 3989 8.8 6 80 148 16.8 —- --
—— —— 55L 3372 7.4 7 80 114 15.4 —- —~
—— —- 6.3L 3376 7.5 8 80 130 17.3 — -—
-— -- 75L 3783 8.3 10 80 114 13.7 -- —
—— -- 95L 4136 9.1 8 80 131 14.4 —— —
-— -—- 35L 3708 8.2 6 80 130 15.8 —- -—
—— —— 74R 3304 7.3 10 80 113 15.5 —- -—
——- -— 93L 3829 8.4 8 80 124 14.8 —' -—
-—— —- . . . . . . . . . . .. 3692 8.1 7.9 8o 125 15.4 -— -—
Half-ham of pork
35.0 2.3 155L 5390 11.9 10 84 220 18.5 44.8 3.0
31.2 2.1 157L 5702 12.6 8 84 190 15.1 39.1 2.6
26.5 1.8 132R 4079 9.0 6 84 169 18.8 34.6 2.3
23.4 1.6 134R 4078 9.0 7 84 176 19.6 35.0 2.4
27.5 1.9 126R 4234 9.3 5 84 153 16.5 30.3 2.0
27.2 1.8 127L 5420 11.9 6 84 197 16.6 39.8 2.7
-—- -- 122R 4147 9.1 1 84 187 20.5 —— -—-
-- -- 123L 3219 7.1 0 84 178 25.1 -— -
32.8 2.2 304R 5536 12.2 7 84 225 18.4 45.3 3.1
29.7 2.0 305L 4946 10.9 6 84 200 18.3 29.5 2.0
38.3 2.6 320R 5830 12.9 7 84 237 18.4 39.0 2.6
30.9 2.1 321L 5367 11.8 8 84 205 17.4 40.8 2.8
34.9 2.4 336R 5353 11.8 6 84 218 18.5 47.6 3.2
32.5 2.2 337L 5506 12.1 4 84 218 18.0 45.2 3.1
33.2 2.2 352R 4904 10.8 5 84 200 18.5 43.4 2.9
27.9 1.9 353_L 4159 9.1 6 84 183 20.1 36.1 2.4
30.8 2.1 . . . . . . . . . . .. 4867 10.7 5.8 84 197 18.6 39.3 2.7
Leg of lamb
17.5 1.2 204R 2235 4.9 5 78 107 21.8 21.4 1.4
21.0 1.4 205L 2889 6.4 3 76 140 21.9 28.3 .9
—- —- 143L 1978 4.4 8 76 82 18.6 —— ——
—— — 146R 2344 5.2 8 76 102 19.6 —— ———
14.1 1.0 288R 2106 4.6 12 76 86 18.7 17.1 1.2
13.1 0.9 289L 2270 5.0 8 76 90 18.0 17.1 1.2
-— -—- 316R 1646 3.6 10 76 70 19.4 ——- ——
—— —— 317L 1611 3.5 12 76 67 19.1 i -———
13.6 70.9 300R 1702 3.7 8 76 81 21.9 16.1 1 1
12.6 0.9 3011, 1724 3.8 10 76 87 22.9 16.0 1.1
—— -— 332R 1921 4.2 10 76 72 17.1 —— -——
—— -— 3331. 2099 4.6 10 76 77 16.7 —- ——-
—— -— 348R 2421 5.3 10 76 106 20.0 —— —-
15.4 1 0 349L 2225 4.9 9 76 91 18.6 17.8 1.2
15.3 1.0 . . . . . . . . . . .. 2084 4.6 8.8 76.1 90 19.6 19.1 1.3

‘Preheating of ovens not included.

48 BULLETIN NO. 542, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table E. The relationship of tenderness ratio to various

   

    

    

Carcass
Weight Initial
Ripen- Roast of roast Internal
ing numbers (pounds) temperature

Class period

Grade Weight days

U. S. pounds . .

125°C 225°C 125°C 225°C 125°C 225°C
9th, 10th, and 11th rib roasts of beef
Choice . . . . . . . 500-600 Steer . . . . . . 11 38R 37L 9.5 9.7 8 6

Choice . . . . . . . 500-600 — 11 59L 60R 7.7 7.8 8 10

Choice . . . . . . . 400-500 Steer . . . . . . 10 78R 77L 6. 8 6. 7 8 8

Choice . . . . . . . 400-500 Steer . . . . . . 10 98R 97L 7.4 7.8 7 8

Common. . . . . 500-600 Steer . . . . . . 10 192R 191L 7.2 7.5 1 3

Choice . . . . . . . 400-500 Heifer. . . . . 11 39L 40R 9.5 9.2 6 —

Good . . . . . . . . 564 Steer . . . . . . 10 185L 186R 10.4 9.6 5 5

Medium . . . . . . 500-600 Steer . . . . . . 10 200R 199L 9.5 8.7 2 2

Common... . . 500-600 Steer . . . . .. 11 212R 211L 8.0 8.8 0 0

Medium . . . . . . 500-600 . . 10 201L 202R 9.0 10.5 2 0
Common. . . . . 500-600 10 220R 219L 8.5 8.8 5 5
Common. . . . . 500-600 10 193L 194R 9.9 8.9 1 5
Choice . . . . . . . 400-500 10 58R 57L 7.7 8.2 8 9
Medium . . . . .. 345 11 177L 178R 5.9 5.4 6 4
Common. . . . . 500-600 11 213L 214R 7.4 7.6 1 2
Choice . . . . . . . 500-600 Steer . . . . . . 10 67L 68R 8.1 8.3 6 8

Choice . . . . . . . 500-600 Steer . . . . . . 10 72R 71L 8.6 7.9 6 6

Common. . . .. 430 Cow . . . . .. 11 153L 154R 6.9 6.8 9 11

Prime . . . . . . . . 630 Steer . . . . . . 10 233L 234R 11.8 12 .3 6 2

Good . . . . . . . . 594 Steer . . . . . . 10 184R 183L 10.6 11.2 4 6

Choice . . . . . . . 400-500 Steer . . . . . . 10 29L 30R 7.6 7. 8 7 7
Common. . . .. 500-600 Steer. . . . 10 22IL 222R 6.7 6.9 7 6
Choice . . . . . . . 400-500 Heifer. . . . . 11 65L 66R 7.3 6.9 6 8

' Choice . . . . . . . 500-600 Steer . . . . . . 10 99L 100R 8.1 8.6 7 8
Medium . . . . . . 500-600 Cow . . . . . . 11 152R 151L 12.3 10.5 7 9
Mean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.4 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.5 8.5 5.3 5.8

Round-bone chuck roasts of beef

Prime . . . . . . .. 630 Steer . . . . . . 10 231L 232R 8.8 10.0 8 8

Choice . . . . . . . 500-600 Steer . . . . . . 14 80R 79L 6. 1 7 . 8 8 8

ChOICE . . . . . . . 500-600 Steer . . . . . . 6 92R 91L 6.5 7.6 8 8

Choice . . . . . . . 400-500 Steer . . . . . . 6 70R 69L 6.1 6.3 8 8

Good . . . . . . . . 594 Steer . . . . . . 9 180R 179L 7.5 7.9 7 10

Good . . . . . . .. 564 Steer . . . . .. 9 181L 182R 7.4 7.2 6 6

Medium... . . . 593 Steer . . . . .. 9 195L 196R 8.1 7.6 8 6

Medium . . . . .. 587 Steer . . . . .. 9 198R 197L 6.9 7.5 7 7
Medium. . .  345 ... 10 174R 173L 5.6 5.5 6 5
Common..... 512 9 187L 188R 6.4 6.2 8 7
Common. . . .. 579 9 190R 189L 6.6 7.0 8 6
Common. . . .. 521 9 207L 208R 7.2 5.7 5 6
Common. . . . . 575 9 210R 209L 6.8 7.4 5 7
Common. . . .. 520 9 215L 216R 5.5 5.9 2 4
Common. . . .. 503 Steer . . . . .. 9 218R 217L 5.5 5.9 4 6
Medium . . . . .. 322 Steer . . . . .. 10 171L 172R 5.5 5.8 - 6 8
Choice . . . . . . . 500-600 - 7 52R 51L 6. 3 8.4 10 8
Mean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.0 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.6 7.0 6.7 69

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND TIME OF COOKING 49

other factors in individual well-done roasts.

Cooking losses
Time in oven
(minutes) Volatile Fat in drippings Total Tender-
(percentage) (percentage) (percentage) ness
ratio
125°C 225°C Dif. 125°C 225°C Dif. 125°C 225°C Dif. 125°C 225°C Dif.
9th. 10th, and 11th rib roasts of beef
439 180 259 16.7 24 1 7.4 11.1 16.4 5.3 28.6 41.9 13 3 1.0000
307 135 172 11.4 20.0 8.6 6.9 14.1 7.2 19.2 34.6 15 4 1.0000
325 139 186 17.4 24.5 7.1 4.0 8.3 4.3 23.1 33.5 10.4 1.0000
348 159 189 17.5 27.2 9.7 3.6 9.4 5.8 22.6 37.5 14.9 1.0000
320 146 174 16.4 26.7 10.3 4.3 7.2 2.9 22.1 34.9 12.8 1.0000
395 186 209 13.8 23 7 9.9 9.8 19.3 9.5 24.7 44.1 19.4 0.9667
383 168 215 12.9 21 8 8.9 8.8 15.6 6.8 23 1 38.7 15.6 0.9500
392 177 215 16.9 26.8 9.9 5.4 11.3 5.9 24.9 39.1 14.2 0.8500
395 180 215 21.1 33.3 12.2 1.5 2.1 0.6 24.7 36.4 11.7 0.8500
410 173 237 18.2 24.2 6.0 9.1 12.8 3.7 29.5 38.0 8.5 0.8000
348 168 180 18.9 29.7 10.8 ——- —— ——- 22.0 34.2 12.2 0.8000
366 155 211 15.8 24.1 8.3 5.1 9.6 4.5 22.5 34.7 12.2 0.7500
340 156 184 14.3 22.9 8.6 7.1 14.0 6.9 22.3 37.5 15.2 0.7500
267 113 154 16.0 25.8 9.8 3.6 2.6 —1.0 19.9 30.2 10.3 0.7500
285 145 140 15.5 26.3 10.8 2.8 6.0 3.2 20.1 32.8 12.7 0.7222
325 160 165 15.2 26.1 10.9 5.0 11.7 6.7 21.3 38.7 17 4 0.6667
356 156 200 13.3 21.1 7.8 8.9 17.2 8.3 22.9 38.9 16 0 0.6667
360 120 240 16.7 23.7 7.0 7.6 10 2 2.6 25.6 34.8 9.2 0.5625
435 217 218 11.2 21 1 9.9 13.4 27.2 13.8 25.9 49.3 23.4 0.4375
415 197 218 11.9 22 7 10.8 9.0 18.2 9.2 22.4 42.1 19.7 0.4000
340 155 185 16.3 23.6 7.3 4.8 13.2 8.4 22.2 37.6 15.4 0.3750
286 129 157 18.7 26.5 7.8 -— —- —— 21.1 29.8 8.7 0.3500
290 135 155 13.1 24.5 11.4 4.8 10.9 6.1 19.1 36.2 17.1 0.1111
310 176 134 13.4 27 5 14.1 4.4 10.5 6.1 19 0 38.8 19.8 0.0833
410 185 225 15.5 25.9 10.4 8.6 15.2 6.6 25.4 42.1 16.7 0.0000
354 160 193 15.5* 25.0* 9.4 6.5 12.3 5 8 23 0* 37 5* 14 5
Round-bone chuck roasts of beef

455 120 335 20.4 19.6 0.8 7.4 15.3 7.9 29.1 36.4 7.3 1.0000
319 124 195 22.2 22.2 0.0 1.9 9.1 7.2 26.5 32.6 6.1 1.0000
457 125 332 28.3 26.2 —2.1 2.1 6.1 4.0 31.7 33.6 1.9 1.0000
433 125 308 28.8 27.4 ——1.4 1.3 3.6 2.3 31.7 32.5 0.8 1.0000
561 119 442 27.4 22 1 ——-5.3 5.8 8.2 2.4 34.7 31.5 —-3.2 1.
490 129 361 26.2 26.9 0.7 4.2 8.8 4.6 31.9 37.0 5.1 1.0000
615 140 475 32.8 31 1 ——-1.7 4.3 4.4 0.1 38.7 37.1 —-1.6 1.0000
S65 138 427 31.5 29.5 ——-2.0 4.0 5.7 1.7 37.4 36.5 ——-0.9 1.0000
502 119 383 29.5 27.5 —2.0 3.9 3.6 .3 34.6 32.3 ——2 3 1.0000
570 115 455 31.2 27.7 —-3.5 5.1 3.2 ——1.9 38.0 32.6 —5 4 1.0000
556 133. 423 30.7 29.8 —0.9 4.2 4.8 0.6 36.6 36.3 —0.3 1.0000
618 120 498 35.9 30.5 —-5.4 0.8 0.9 0.1 38.7 33.2 -———5.5 1.0000
517 144 373 32.0 30.7 —-1.3 2.2 3.9 1.7 35.9 35.7 ——0.2 1.0000
473 123 350 31.6 31.4 —-—0.2 1.8 1.7 —0.1 35.0 34.5 ——0.5 1.0000
451 116 335 30.9 32.3 1.4 2.4 1.7 —0.7 34.9 35.4 0.5 1.0000
455 129 326 25.9 30.7 4.8 2.5 4.5 2.0 29.9 36.3 6.4 0.8125
414 131 283 24.0 21.1 —2.9 4.6 11.9 7.3 29.8 33.9 4.1 0.7143
497 126 371 28.8* 27.5*—-1.2 3.4 5.7 2.3 33.8* 34.6* 0.7

*These means are subject to_ the criticism that_the temperature, humidity, and
length of storage period varled considerably w1th the different pairs of roasts.

S0 BULLETIN NO. 542, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table E. The relationship of tenderness ratio to various

Carcass
Weight Initial
Ripen- Roast of roast Internal
ing numbers (pounds) temperature
Class period
Grade Weight days
U. S. pounds
125°C 225°C 125°C 225°C 125°C 225°C
Rump roasts of beef
Choice . . . . . . . 500-600 Steer . . . . . . 9 28R 27L 7 .9 8 . 2 8 8

Choice. . . . . . . 500-600 Steer . . . . . . 10 33L 34R 8.6 8.8 7 6

Choice . . . . . . . 500-600 Steer . . . . . . 13 76R 75L 8.0 8.3 8 10

Choice . . . . . . . 400-500 Steer . . . . . . 9 73L 74R 6.0 7 .3 7 10

Choice . . . . . . . 400-500 Steer . . . . . . 9 94R 93L 7. 6 8.4 8 8

Choice . . . . . . . 500-600 Steer . . . . . . 9 64R 63L 7. 1 7 .5 7 8

Choice . . . . . . . 400-500 Heifer. . . . . 10 36R 35L 7 .5 8.2 6 6

Choice . . . . . . . 500-600 — 10 56R 55L 7.3 7 .4 8 7

Choice . . . . . . . 500-600 Steer . . . . . . 9 96R 95L 7.7 9. 1 8 8

Mean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 9.8 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.5 8 1 7.4 7 9
Half-ham roasts of pork
202 Barrow... . 7 156R 155L 11.0 11.9 7 10
171 Barrow.... 7 306R 305L 11.5 10.9 4 6
155 Barrow... . 6 354R 353L 9.1 9 .1 7 6
170 Barrow. . . . 7 338R 337L 12.0 12.1 4 4
197 Barrow. . .. 8 12SL 126R 9.8 9.3 4 5
196 Barrow... 8 128R 127L 10.2 11.9 6 6
151 Barrow.... 7 131L 132R 9.1 9.0 4 6
130 Barrow 7 133L 134R 8.3 9.0 6 7
199 Gilt . . . . . . . 6 322R 321L 11.1 11.8 9 8
171 Gilt . . . . . . . 7 335L 336R 10.9 11 .8 6 6
186 Barrow... . 6 319L 320R 12.9 12 .9 10 7
185 Barrow... . 7 303L 304R 12.2 12 .2 7 7
172 Gilt . . . . . .. 7 158R 157L 10.8 12.6 7 8
156 Barrow... . 7 121L 122R 8.8 9.1 1 1
125 Gilt . . . . . .. 7 124R 123L 7.3 7 .1 0 0
159 Barrow. . .. 6 351L 352R 10.0 10.8 6 5
Mean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.9 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 10.3 10.7 5 5 5.8
Leg of lamb roasts
Choice . . . . . . . 46 Wether. . . . 7 203L 204R 4.9 4.9 6 5

Medium . . . . . . 29 Wether. . . . 6 299L 300R 3 . 6 3 .7 11 8

Good . . . . . . .. ——— Wether. . . . 7 144R 143L 4.4 4.4 8 8

Good . . . . . . .. 34 Ewe . . . . .. 7 315L 316R 3.6 3.6 9 10

Medium . . . . . . 38 Wether. . . . 6 334R 333L 4.7 4.6 11 10

Good . . . . . . . . . 38 Wether. . . . 7 290R 289L 4.8 5 .0 6 8

Good . . . . . . . . 38 Ewe . . . . .. 7 318R 317L 3.5 3.5 12 12

GOOd . . . . . . . . 36 Wether . . . 7 287L 288R 4. 7 4. 6 11 12

Medium . . . . . . 30 Wether. . . . 6 302R 301L 3.8 3.8 10 10

Medium . . . . . . 40 Wether. . . . 7 350R 349L 4. 7 4.9 10 9

Medium . . . . . . 39 Wether. . .. 7 347L 348R 5.4 S .3 10 10

Good . . . . . . .. —— Ewe . . . . .. 7 145L 146R 5.3 5.2 10 8

Choice . . . . . . . 54 Wether. . . . 7 206R 205L 6.1 6.4 3 3

Medium . . . . .. 34 Wether. . . . 6 331i. 332R 4.2 k 4.2 12 10

Mean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 67 . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 46 4.6 92 88

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND TIME OF COOKING 51

other factors in individual well-done roasts—-Continued.

Cooking losses
Time in oven
(minutes) Volatile Fat in drippings Total Tender-
. (percentage) (percentage) (percentage) ness
» ratio
125°C 225°C Dif. 125°C 225°C Dif. 125°C225°C Dif. 12.5°C 225°C Dif.
Rump roasts of beef
468 125 343 21.8 23.0 1.2 4.6 6.9 2.3 27.3 30.5 3.2 1.0000
485 148 337 22.0 24.5 2.5 5.7 7.3 1.6 29.0 32 5 3.5 1.0000
483 114 369 22.2 19.4 —-2.8 6.2 8.5 2.3 29.7 28.8 —0.9 1.0000
463 113 350 25.1 24.3 .8 3.1 3.8 0.7 29.7 29.4 —-0.3 1.0000
489 124 365 27.6 23.4 —-4 2 2.1 4.4 2.3 31.7 28.9 -—2.8 1.0000
419 130 289 23.7 24.9 1.2 2.5 2.1 —-0.4 28.5 28.5 0.0 0.9500
375 130 245 16.3 19.7 3.4 5.2 10.0 4.8 22.7 30.7 8.0 0.9500
335 114 221 16.0 20.1 4.1 6.0 8.4 2.4 23.2 29.4 6.2 0.9167
385 131 254 19.6 23.6 4.0 3.7 4.6 0.9 24.8 29.3 4.5 0.5000
434 125 308 21.6* 22.5* 1 0 4.3 6.2 1 9 27 4* 29 8* 2 4
Half-ham roasts of pork
461 220 241 16 4 27.6 11.2 5.6 9.6 4.0 26 8 38.9 11.1 1.0000
405 200 205 12 1 22.6 10.5 -—— -—— ——- 26 3 35.0 8.7 1.0000
363 183 180 14 3 24.6 10 3 —— -—— i- 28.7 36.7 8.0 1.0000
393 218 185 16 7 27.4 10.7 ——- ——— -—— 24.8 35.3 10.5 0.9286
365 153 212 13 3 22.8 9.5 6.7 8.2 1.5 25 3 32.1 6.8 0.9167
356 197 159 14 8 25.6 10.8 4.2 8.6 4.4 23 9 35.6 11.7 0.8750
337 169 168 14 3 24.5 10.2 ——- i —-— 26 4 35 8 9.4 0.8750
294 176 118 13 4 26.2 12 8 ——- i- —— 22.1 31 1 9.0 0.8750
390 205 185 13 0 22.7 9.7 -—— —— ——- 25 0 35 5 10.5 0.8750
441 218 223 16 3 26.4 10.1 ———- i -—— 26 4 36.7 10.3 0.8333
470 237 233 14 7 25.2 10.5 i- ——- —-—- 26.3 35.6 9.3 0.7083
443 225 218 12 8 24.5 11.7 i —— —— 29 2 38.3 9.1 0.7000
408 190 218 17 4 23.9 6.5 6.1 2.9 28.1 34.2 6.1 0.6250
359 187 172 17 7 .28.7 11.0 5 3 2.4 29 2 38.3 9.1 0.5909
358 178 180 18.2 28.2 10.0 3.7 27.9 38.7 10.8 0.2083
434 200 234 17.4 27.0 9.6 ——- ——— ——- 32.1 39.0 6.9 0.2000
392 197 196 15.2* 25.5* 10 3 5.5 8.7 3.1 26.8* 36.1* 9.2
Leg of lamb roasts

231 107 124 13.5 22.2 8 ——- ——- ——- 19.1 31.8 12.7 0.8333
185 81 104 12.0 21.1 9.1 i- i- -—' 17-2 26-9 9-7 0.7500
178 82 96 9.5 22.0 12.5 —— —— -—- 13.8 26.3 12.5 0.7083
155 70 85 —— -——- —— i —— -— —- -—— ——- 0.6842
179 77 102 10.5 18.2 7.7 ——- —— —— 14-4 21-1 6.7 0.6250
189 90 99 9_4 2L3 12,4 -—- -—- —— 13.5 27.5 14.0 0.5833
145 67’ 78 7.5 17.1 9.6 —— i i- 11.3 23.1 11.8 0.5333
195 86 109 12.0 21.8 9.8 i —- —- 17-0 25-7 9-7 0-5000
179 87 92 10.6 20.5 9.9 i- ——— —- 15-5 27-7 12-2 0-5000
200 91 109 12.2 22.1 9.1 i ——- — 16.3 25.4 9.1 0.5000
221 106 115 —- —— —— -—- —— ——- —'— ‘i —'— 0.3333
222 102 120 12.1 26.1 14.0 —-— ——- -—— 17-9 31~0 13-1 0-2000
272 140 132 13.0’ 24.9 11.9 -—— —- -—- 25-3 33-6 12-3 0.1657
185 ~72 113 10.9 17.8 6.9 ——- —-—— ——- 14-9 21-7 6-3 0-1667
195 90 106 11.1* 21.3* 10.1 -— — —— 16.4* 27.3* 10.9

‘These means are subject to the criticism that_the temperature, hpmidity, and
length of storage period varied considerably w1th the dlfferent palrs of roasts.

S2 BULLETIN NO. 542, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table F. Removal temperature, time and gas required to obtain medium-

Carcass 125°C
_________.__
Internal temperature Time in minutes
Ripen-
ing Weight
Class period of roast _ To reach
U. S. Weight days Roast _ _ In oven maximum
grade lbs. number Imt1al Re- Maxi-
°C moval mum
°C °C Per Per
Grams Pounds Total pound Total pound
9th, 10th, and 11th ribs of beef

—— 398 Heifer 10 244R 2265 5.0 7 52 601' 130 26.0 30 6.0
Good 650 Steer 11 238R 5470 12.1 1 58 641‘ 27S 22 . 7 S3 4. 4
519 Steer 9 239L 4152 9.2 8 58 661' 201 21.8 44 4.8

503 Steer 8 346R 4245 9.3 7 55 61 183 19.7 42 4.5

S10 Steer 9 376R 3773 8.3 6 55 61 165 19.9 45 5.4

S79 Steer 8 379L 4332 9 .5 4 55 62 209 22.0 41 4.3

412 Heifer 9 279L 3370 7.4 8 SS 61 160 21.6 38 5.1

420 Heifer 9 282R 3550 7.8 10 55 62 150 19 .2 30 3 .8

499 Steer 8 343L 3926 8.6 6 55 63 190 22 . 1 45 5.2

Medium 477 Steer 8 295L 3695 8.1 6 55 62 178 22 .0 42 5 .2
447 Steer 8 298R 3266 7. 2 6 55 62 164 22 .8 31 4.3

480 Steer 9 327L 4007 8. 8 3 55 63 194 22 . 0 51 5 .8

482 Steer 9 330R 3382 7 .5 4 55 63 170 22 . 7 35 4. 7

462 Cow 9 365L 3725 8 . 2 8 56 64 180 22.0 35 4.3

336 -— — 246R 2150 4.7 1O 54 63 146 31.1 34 7.2

352 Steer 6 271L 2479 5.5 5 55 62 150 27.3 35 6.4

383 Steer 6 274R 2614 5.8 6 55 63 145 25.0 40 6.9

Common 506 Bull (P) 7 278R 4033 8.9 4 55 65 190 21.3 55 6.2
489 Steer 9 253L 3409 7.5 8 54 61 154 20.5 36 4.8

466 Steer 9 256R 3193 7 . 0 8 54 60 149 21.3 36 5.1

499 Steer 8 260R 3666 8 . 1 7 55 63 175 21. 6 40 4 .9

416 Steer 7 275L 2722 6.0 7 55 63 150 25 .0 40 6. 7

416 Cow 9 311L 3470 7.7 8 55 62 177 23.0 38 4.9

421 Cow 9 314R 2887 6.3 6 55 60 153 23 .9 27 4.2

420 Cow 9 362R 2880 6. 3 8 56 62 141 22.4 44 7.0

Mean...  . . . . . . . . .. 8.2 . . . . . .. 3399 7.5 6.6 55.0 62.2 167 22.7 39 5.3

TData. from these roasts were not used in computing the means nor in the test
for palatability.

‘EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND TIME OF COOKING 53
rare roasts o! beef at constant oven temperatures of 125°C and 225°C.
225°C
Internal temperature Time in minutes
Gas* Weight Gay!‘
of roast To reach
Roast; . In oven maximum
number Initial Re- Maxi-
° moval mum
Cubic Cost °C °C Per Per C u b i c Cost
feet cents Grams Pounds Total pound Total pound feet cents
9th 10th, and 11th ribs of beef

9.8 0.7 243L 2744 6.0 8 46 651' 80 13.3 47 7.8 15.4 1.0
22.9 1.5 237L 5101 11.2 4 58 681' 143 12.8 4O 3.6 33.7 2.3
15.9 1.1 240R 4164 9.2 10 58 73f 123 13.4 47 5.1 26.1 1.8
14.6 1.0 345L 4473 9.9 6 45 62 98 9.9 47 4.7 21.9 1.5
—-— 375L 3955 8.7 6 45 65 99 11.4 61 7.0 —— ——-

16.5 1 1 380R 4388 9.7 4 45 64 113 11.6 57 5.9 23.3 1.6
——- —— 280R 3476 7. 7 8 44 61 75 9. 7 45 5 . 8 ——- ——-
11.8 0.8 281L 3339 7.4 10 45 61 74 10.0 46 6.2 15.9 1.1
15.1 1.0 344R 3943 8.7 6 45 63 93 10.7 47 5.4 20.8 1.4
13.4 0.9 296R 3611 8.0 5 45 63 86 10.8 59 7.4 17.9 1.2
12.3 0.8 297L 3053 6.7 6 45 65 80 11.9 54 8.1 15.5 1.0
14.4 1.0 328R 3638 8.0 2 46 63 90 11.3 45 5.6 19.4 1.3
12.6 0.9 329L 3598 7.9 4 45 63 87 11.0 48 6.1 17.8 1.2
14.7 1.0 366R 3645 8.0 7 45 62 83 10.4 43 5.4 17.4 1.2
10.4 0.7 245L 1816 4.0 9 45 64 69 17.3 37 9.3 14.7 1.0
21.7 1.5 272R 2286 5.0 7 45 64 66 13.2 44 8.8 22.7 1.5
10.7 0.7 273L 2692 5.9 7 45 65 78 13.2 47 8.0 15.5 1.0
14.8 1.0 277L 4085 9.0 7 45 65 100 11.1 65 7.2 21.8 1.5
21.7 1.5 254R 3114 6.9 8 45 63 77 11.2 38 5.5 15.9 1.1
21.0 1.4 255L 3276 7.2 8 '45 63 82 11.4 43 6.0 17.4 1.2
—— ——- 259L 3919 8.6 7 45 63 95 11.0 S0 5.8 ——— ——-
10.8 0.7 276R 2518 5.5 7 45 63 71 12.9 39 7.1 13.0 0.9
13.2 0.9 312R 3168 7.0 7 46 62 81 11.6 44 6.3 16.6 1.1
12.2 0.8 313L 3542 7.8 7 45 65 9S 12.2 45 5.8 19.5 1.3
11.2 0.8 361L 2705 6.0 8 45 64 71 11.8 39 6.5 14.9 1.0
14.4 1.0 . . . . . . . . .. 3375 7.4 6.6 45.0 63.3 8S 11.6 47 6.5 17.9 1.2

‘Preheating of ovens not included.

[Data from these roasts were not us

for palatability.

ed in computing the means nor in the tests

54 BULLETIN NO. 542, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table F. Removal temperature, time, and gas required to obtain medium-rare

Carcass 125°C
Internal temperature Time in minutes
Ripen- Weight
Class ing of roast
U. S. Weight period Roast In oven
grade pounds days No. Re- Maxi- ‘ To
Initial moval mum reach
°C °C °C Per maxi-
Grams Pounds Total pound mum
Round-bone chuck of beef

Good... 650 Steer 11 235L 3516 7 .8 8 58 58f 169 21.7 0
519 Steer 9 241L 2370 5.2 6 62 62 171 32.9 0

503 Steer 7 342R 3316 7.3 11 63 63 200 27.4 0

510 Steer 8 372R 3998 8.8 10 63 63 252 28. 6 0

579 Steer 8 377L 4230 9 .3 6 63 63 304 32. 7 0

420 Heifer 9 286R 2533 5 .6 12 64 64 15S 27 . 7 0

499 Steer 7 339L 3746 8.3 8 63 63 255 30. 7 0

490 Steer 8 3691, 3286 7.2 8 63 63 230 31 .9 0

Medium 462 Cow 9 363L 3158 7 .0 8 63 63f 224 32.0 0
477 Steer 7 291L 2718 6.0 5 63 63 183 30.5 0

447 Steer 7 294R 2213 4.9 7 63 63 163 33 . 3 0

480 Steer 8 323L 2697 5 .9 11 63 63 191 32 .4 0

482 Steer 8 326R 3329 7 .3 10 63 63 197 27 .0 0

352 Steer S 267L 1977 4.3 10 63 63 145 33. 7 0

383 Steer 5 270R 2288 5 .0 10 63 63 156 31.2 0

Common 506 Bull(?) 5 266R 2433 5.4 13 63 ' 63 137 25.4 O
489 Steer 8 249L 2973 6.5 10 63 63 160 24. 6 0

466 —- 8 252R 2458 5 .4 8 63 63 150 27.8 0

499 Steer 8 262R 2828 6.2 8 63 63 183 29.5 0

416 Steer 4 263L 2437 5 .4 14 63 63 155 28.7 0

412 Cow 8 355L 2634 5 .8 8 63 63 183 31.6 0

420 Cow 8 358R 3233 7 .1 10 63 63 210 29.6 0

335 Steer 5 367L 2108 4. 6 12 63 63 130 28 .3 0

Mean... . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.1 . . . . .. 2848 6.3 9.4 63.0 63.0 186 29.8 0

fData. from these roasts were not used in computing" the means nor in the
tests for palatability.

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND TIME OF COOKING 55

roasts of bee! at constant oven temperatures of 125°C and 225°C—-Continued.

225°C
Gas* Internal temperature Time in minutes Gas*
Weight
of roast
Roast In oven
number Re- Maxi- To
Cubic Cost Initial moval mum reach Cubic Cost
feet , cents °C °C °C Per maxi- feet cents
Grams Pounds Total pound mum
Round-bone chuck of beef

13.8 O 9 236R 3353 7.4 7 58 581' 86 11.6 0 17.7 1.2
12.9 0 9 242R 2658 5.9 6 62 63 91 15.4 14 16.3 1.1
——- -— 3411. 3442 7.6 s 63 6s 93 12.2 0 —— —-
19.7 1 3 371L 3815 8.4 7 62 62 111 13.2 0 23 5 1.6
-—- —- 378R 4570 10.1 6 62 62 11s 11.7 0 -— -—-
11.1 0.7 285L 2639 5.8 13 64 64 77 13.3 0 16.0 1.1
20.8 1.4 340R 3350 7.4 8 63 65 96 13.0 13 20.7 1.4
17.8 1.2 370R 3934 8.7 8 62 62 111 12.8 _ 0 24.4 1.6
17.3 1.2 364R 3293 7.3 8 63 66f 108 14.8 17 23.1 1.6
13.1 0.9 292R 2843 6.3 7 63 63 83 13.2 0 15.5 1.0
-- — 2931. 2500 s .5 7 63 63 72 13.1 0 —- —-
13.7 0.9 324R 3205 7.1 10 63 63 89 12.5 0 18.6 1.3
14.5 1.0 325L 3081 6.8 10 63 63 70 10.3 0 14.1 1.0
10.4 0.7 268R 2051 4.5 10 63 63 69 15.3 0 13.0 0.9
12.3 0.8 269L 2210 4.9 10 63 63 61 12.4 0 12.3 0.8
10.8 0.7 265L 2760 6.1 12 63 63 65 10.7 0 13.1 0.9
12.1 0.8 250R 2441 5.4 8 63 63 62 11.5 0 13.8 0.9
14.2 1.0 2S1L 2787 6.1 10 63 63 7S 12.3 0 15.2 1.0
14.5 1.0 261L 2511 5.5 8 65 65 70 12.7 0 13.3 0.9
10.2 0.7 264R 2463 5.4 10 63 63 70 13.0 0 13.3 0.9
14.1 1.0 356R 3023 6.7 7 64 64 105 15.7 0 22.2 1.5
16.1 1.1 357L 3285 7.2 7 63 65 115 16.0 20 24.2 1.6
—— 368R 2174 4.8 13 62 62 65 13.5 0 -—— —--

14.0 0.9 . . . . . . . . .. 2940 6.5 8.8 63.0 63.2 84 13.0 2 17.0 1.1

*Prehea.ting of ovens not included. _ _
TData. from these roasts were not used 1n computmg the means nor in the

tests for palatability.

S6 BULLETIN NO. 542, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table G.

The results of individual tests for tenderness

 

Roast
Carcass Numbers
 
Ripen-
ing 125°C
period
in
U. S. Weight days Difference _
Grade pounds 125°C 225°C
More
tender
Slight Decided
9th, 10th, and 11th ribs

Good . . . . . . . . . . 503 8 346R 3451. 13 8 5
510 9 376R 375L 4 2 2

579 8 379L 380R 2 2 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 12 7

412 9 279L 280R 2 2 O

420 9 282R 281L 7 5 2

499 8 343L 344R 7 6 1

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 13 3

Medium . . . . . . . 477 8 295L 296R 2 2 0
447 8 298R 297L 3 3 0

480 9 327L 328R 6 5 1

482 9 330R 329L 9 5 4

462 9 365L 366R 0 0 0

Tota1.... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 21 15 5

336 — 246R 245L 3 2 1

352 6 271L 272R 2 1 1

383 6 274R 273L 9 0 9

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 3 11

Common . . . . . . . 506 7 278R 277L 7 S 1
489 9 253L 254R s 1 4

466 9 256R 255L 9 2 7

499 8 260R 259L 3 3 0

416 7 275L 276R 1 1 0

416 9 311L 312R 6 1 5

42 1 9 314R 313L 11 8 3

420 9 362R 361L 10 5 5

Total. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45 21 24

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND TIME OF COOKING 57

with paired roasts of beef cooked medium-rare.

Tenderness
Number of judgments by paired eating method
Weighted
225°C For statistical treatment adjectives
average
per roast
No Difference Total More tender
differ- N _______._._____
ence More Ratio
tender 125°C 225°C ns/N
Slight Decided "s nt 125°C 225°C
9th, 10th, and 11th ribs

2 2 1 1 17 14.0 3.0 4.3 3.3

3 5 5 0 12 5.5* 6.5* 4.7 4.6

1 12 4 8 15 2.5* 12.5* 4.4 5.0
6 19 10 9 44 22.0 22.0 0.5000 4.51 4.31

1 4 1 '8 2.5* 5.5* 3.5 3.6
0 1 1 0 8 7.0 1.0 4.8 4.5 1

2 5 1 15 8.0 7.0 3.8 4.0
3 12 10 2 31 17.5 13.5 0.5645 4.01 4.01

1 3 2 8 2.5* 5.5* 2.0 3.0

1 4 1 3 8 3.5* 4.5* 2.6 2.6

3 6 5 1 15 7.5 7.5 3.6 3.3

6 0 0 0 15 12.0 3.0 4.0 3.6

0 12 5 7 12 0.0* 12.0* 3.0 4.4
11 27 14 13 58 25 5 32 5 0.4397 3.01 3.41

3 6 5 1 12 4.5* 7.5* 2.1 2.5

2 5 3 2 9 3.0* 6.0* 3.0 3.2

0 0 0 0 9 .0 0.0 3.5 1.8
5 11 8 3 30 16.5 13 5 0.5500 2.91 2.51

4 0 0 0 11 9.0 2.0 5.0 4.6

1 6 1 5 12 5.5* 6.5* 3.3 2.9

1 2 0 2 12 9.5 2.5 3.1 1.6

3 0 0 0 6 4.5 1.5 4.7 4.5

2 8 5 3 11 2.0* 9.0* 2.5 3.3

6 6 6 0 18 9.0 9.0 3.6 3.2

0 7 6 1 18 11.0 7.0 4.2 4.1

0 2 2 0 12 10.0 2.0 2.8 2.0
13 31 20 11 89 51.5 37.5 0.5787 3.51 3.11

*The majority of the paired judgments in this roast were in favor of high
oven temperature. These roasts were apparently distributed in random
manner in all of the groups of roasts.

tMean of all roasts.

58 BULLETIN NO. 542, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

Table G. The results of individual tests for tenderness

Roast
Carcass Numbers
Ripen-
ing 125°C
period
in
U. S. Weight days Diﬁerence
Grade pounds 125°C 225°C
More I
tender
Slight Decided
Round-bone chuck

G0od.......... 519 9 241L 242R 6 6 0
503 7 342R 341L 2 1 O

510 8 372R 371L 1 1 0

579 8 377L 378R 4 2 2

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 10 2

420 9 286R 285L 2 2 0

499 7 339L 340R 5 4 1

490 8 369L 370R 5 5 O

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12 11 1

Medium. . . . . . . 477 7 291L 292R 1 0 1
447 7 294R 293L 3 0 3

480 8 323L 324R 4 4 0

482 8 326R 325L 5 2 3

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 6 7

352 5 267L 268R 2 2 0

383 5 270R 269L 2 2 0

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 4 0

Common. . . . . . . 506 5 266R 265L 3 3 0
489 8 249L 250R 2 1 0

46‘6 8 252R 2'51L 4 3 1

499 8 262R 261L 3 3 O

416 4 2631, 264R 5 4 1

412 8 355L 356R 3 3 0

420 8 358R 357L 3 0 3

Total . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20- 14 5

335 5 367L 368R 7 5 2

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND TIME OF COOKING 59

with paired roasts of beef cooked medium-rare—Continued.

Tenderness

 

Number of judgments by paired eating method
Weighted
225°C For statistical treatment adjectives
average
per roast
No Difference Total More tender
diﬁer- N
ence More | Ratio
tender 125°C 225°C ns/N
Slight Decided 11s I11; 125°C 225°C
Round-bone chuck

1 1 1 0 8 6.5 1.5 4.6 4.5

1 5 5 0 8 2.5* 5.5* 4.8 4.8

4 5 5 0 10 3.0* 7.0* 4.6 4.7

2 4 4 0 1 10 5.0 5.0 4.7 4.5
8 15 15 0 36 17.0 19.0 0.4722 4.71 4.61

3 s s o s s.s* 4.5* 4.9 4.9

3 0 0 0 8 6.5 1.5 4.9 4.6

3 2 1 1 10 6.5 3.5 4.5 4.5
9 5 4 1 26 16.5 9.5 0.6346 4.81 4.71

1 6 1 5 1.5* (5.5* 2.4 3.6

2 3 1 2 8 4.0 4.0 3.9 3.8

3 1 1 0 8 5.5 2.5 4.5 4.4

1 2 2 0 5.5 2.5 3.6 3.1
7 12 5 7 32 16.5 15.5 0.5156 3.61 3.71

3 3 3 0 8 3.5* 4.5* 4.5 4.5

1 5 3 2 8 2.5* 5.5* 3.6 3.9
4 8 6 2 16 6.0 10.0 0.3750 4.01 4.21

3 . 2 0 8 4.5 3.5 0.5625 4.9 5.0
2 4 3 1 8 3.0* 5.0* 3.3 3.4_

2 2 2 0 8 5.0 3.0 3.3 3.0

3 0 0 0 6 4.5 1.5 3.4 3.1

0 3 1 2 8 5.0 3.0 3.4 3.8

3 4 2 2 10 4.5* 5.5* 3.7 4.1

5 2 0 2 10 5.5 4.5 3.6 3.5
15 15 8 7 50 27.5 22.5 0.5500 3.51 3.51

1 2 2 0 10 7.5 2.5 0.7500 4.0 3.4

‘The majority of the paired judgments in this roast were in favor of high
oven temperature. These roasts were apparently distributed in random
manner in all of the groups of roasts.

IMean of all roasts.

BULLETIN NO. S42, TEXAS AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION

 

60
Table H. The relationship of tenderness ratio to various
Carcass
Initial
Ripen- Roast numbers Weight of roast Internal
ing (pounds) Temperature
Class period
Grade Weight in
U. S. pounds days ,
125°C 225°C 125°C 225°C 125°C 225°C
9th, 10th and 11th rib roasts of beef
Good. . . . . 420 9 282R 281L 7.8 7.4 1O 10
Common. . 420 9 362R 361L 6.3 6.0 8 8
Good. . . . . 503 8 346R 345L 9.3 9.9 7 6
Common. . S06 7 278R 277L 8.9 9 .0 4 7
Medium. . . 482 9 330R 329L 7 . 5 7 .9 4 4
Common. . 466 9 256R 255L 7.0 7.2 8 8
Common. . 499 8 260R 259L 8.1 8.6 7 7
Common. . 421 9 314R 313L 6.3 7.8 6 7
Good. . . . . 499 8 343L 344R 8.6 8. 7 6 6
Medium. . . 480 9 327L 328R 8.8 8.0 3 2
Common.. 416 9 311L 312R 7.7 7.0 8 7
Good.  510 9 376R 375L 8.3 8.7 6 6
Common. . 489 9 253L 254R 7.5 6.9 8 8
Medium. . . 447 8 298R 297L 7 . 2 6.7 6 6
Medium. 336 — — 246R 245L 4. 7 4.0 10 9
Medium 352 Steer..... 6 271L 272R 5.5 5.0 5 7
Good. . . .. 412 Heifer 9 279L 280R 7.4 7.7 8 8
Medium 477 Steer. . . . . 8 295L 296R 8.1 8.0 6 5
Common 416 Steer. . . .. 7 275L 276R 6.0 5 . 5 7 7
Good. .  579 Steer..... 8 379L 380R 9.5 9.7 4 4
Medium 383 Steer. . . . . 6 274R 273L 5 . 8 5 .9 6 7
Medium 462 Cow. . . . . 9 365L 366R 8 . 2 8.0 8 7
Mean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 8.2 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.5 7.4 6.6 6.6
Round-bone chuck roasts of beef

Good.'. . .. s19 Steer. . ... 9 2411. 242R 5.2 5.9 6 6
Good . . . . . 499 Steer. . . . . 7 339L 340R 8. 3 7.4 8 8
Common.. 499 Steer. . . .. 8 262R 261L 6.2 5.5 8 8
Common.. 335 Steer. . . . . 5 367L 368R 4.6 4.8 12 13
Medium. . . 480 Steer. . . . . 8 323L 324R 5 .9 7 .1 11 10
Medium. . . 482 Steer. . . . . 8 326R 325L 7 .3 6.8 10 10
Good. . . .. 490 Steer... . . 8 369L 370R 7.2 8.7 8 8
Common. . 466 — 8 252R 251L 5.4 6.1 8 10
Common. . 416 Steer. . . .. 4 263L 264R 5 .4 5 .4 14 10
Common. . 506 Bull (?). . 5 266R 265L 5.4 6. 1 13 12
Common. . 420 Cow. . . . . 8 358R 357L 7.1 7.2 10 7
Good. . . . . 579 Steer. . . . . 8 377L 378R 9.3 10.1 6 6
Medium. . . 447 Steer. . . . . 7 294R 293L 4.9 5.5 7 7
Common. . 412 Cow. . . .. 8 35SL 356R 5.8 6.7 8 7
Good. . . . . 420 Heifer 9 286R 285L 5.6 5.8 12 13
Medium. . . 3S2 Steer. . . .. 5 267L 268R 4. 3 4.5 10 10
Common. . 489 Steer. . . . . 8 249L 250R 6.5 5 .4 10 8
Good. . . .. 503 Steer..... 7 342R 341L 7.3 7.6 11 8
Medium 383 Steer. . . . . 5 270R 269L 5.0 4.9 10 10
Good. . 510 Steer..... 8 372R 371L 8.8 8.4 10 7
Medium 477 Steer . 7 29 1L 292R 6. 0 6. 3 5 7
Mean . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 7.1 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. 6.3 6.5 9.4 8.8

EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE AND TIME OF COOKING 61
other factors in individual medium-rare roasts.
Cooking 1osses*
Time in oven
+ time to reach
maximum Volatile Total
(minutes) (percentage) (percentage) Tenderness
. ratio
l 125°C I 225°C Dif. 125°C 225°C Dif. 125°C 225°C Dif.
9th, 10th and 11th rib roasts of beef
180 120 60 4.4 ' 11.7 7.3 6.1 19.8 13.7 0.8750
185 110 75 6.0 13.4 7.4 8.1 18.5 10.4 0.8333
225 145 80 5.3 14.4 9.1 7.3 22.1 14.8 0.8235
245 165 80 5.0 13.8 8.8 6.6 19.8 13.2 0.8182
205 135 70 5.5 14.3 8.8 7.5 19.4 11.9 0.8000
185 125 60 5.6 16.0 10.4 6.2 18.1 11.9 0.7917
215 145 70 6.8 18.4 11.6 7.6 19.9 12.3 0.7500
180 140 40 5.0 14.8 9.8 9.1 32.1 23.0 0.6111
23s 140 9s 5.3 13.1 7.8 6.6 20.7 ' 14.1 0.533s
245 135 110 5.8 16.1 10.3 7.3 20.5 13.2 0.5000
215 125 90 4.9 12.4 7.5 8.8 23.2 14.4 0.5000
210 160 50 4.9 15.1 10.2 6.1 21.2 15.1 0.4583
190 115 75 6.4 14.9 8.5 6.8 16.9 10.1 0.4583
195 134 61 6.1 13 9 7.8 7.1 18.3 11.2 0.4375
180 106 74 5.6 13.1 7.5 6.3 17.5 11.2 0.3750
185 110 75 5.2 14.0 8.8 5.6 16.1 10.5 0.3333
198 120 78 3.9 10.3 6.4 5.9 19.4 13.5 0.3125
220 145 75 4.9 12.0 7.1 7.0 21.3 14.3 0.3125
190 110 80 4.5 12.2 7.7 5.2 16.0 10.8 0.1812
250 170 80 6.2 13.0 6.8 9.4 24.4 15.0 0.1667
185 125 60 4.8 13.6 8.8 5.7 18.2 12.5 0.1000
215 126 89 7.0 13.1 6.1 9.7 21.5 11.8 0.0000
206 132 74 5.41 13.81 8.4 7.11 20.2f 13.1
Round-bone chuck roasts of beef
171 105 66 10.3 18.4 8.1 12.8 23 7 10.9 0.8125
255 109 146 12.2 18.8 6.6 15.3 25 5 10.2 0.8125
183 70 113 8.5 14.6 6.1 9.6 16 7 7.1 0.7500
130 65 65 8.5 16.5 8.0 10.2 21.0 10.8 0.7500
191 89 102 9.9 17.2 7.3 11.8 21.3 9.5 0.6875
197 70 127 9.5 11.4 1.9 11.6 15.0 3.4 0.6875
230 111 119 11.7 18.7 7.0 14.5 27.1 12.6 0.6500
150 75 75 7.5 15.2 7.7 8.4 17.2 8.8 0.6250
155 70 85 9.7 16.2 6.5 11.5 19.2 7.7 0.6250
137 65 72 7.0 11.7 4.7 7.7 16.1 8.4 0.5625
210 135 75 11.4 23.7 12.3 13.3 27.7 14.4 0.5500
304 118 186 13.5 17.0 3.5 17.1 25.2 8.1 0.5000
163 72 91 11.4 15.1 3.7 14.2 18.8 4.6 0.5000
183 105 78 8.5 21.1 12.6 9.7 26.1 16.4 0.4500
155 77 78 9.3 18.4 9.1 12.2 23.0 10.8 0.4375
145 69 76 8.1 18.0 9.9 9.9 21.7 11.8 0.4375
160 62 98 8.1 15.3 7.2 8.8 17.1 8.3 0.3750
200 93 107 9.9 17.1 7.2 12.6 22.9 10.3 0.3125
156 61 95 6.0 11.5 5.5 7.0 16.4 9.4 0.3125
252 111 141 11.6 19.6 8.0 14.8 25.8 11.0 0.3000
183 83 100 8.6 16.2 7.6 10.4 21 2 10.8 0.1875
186 86 100 9.61‘ 16.71‘ 7.2 11.61‘ 21.41’ 9.8
‘Fat in drippings was not measured for these roasts.

fThese means are subject to the criti
and length of stora.

of roasts.

cism that the temperature, humidity,

ge period varied considerably with the different pairs