+ Site Statistics
+ Search Articles
+ PDF Full Text Service
How our service works
Request PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on Facebook
Follow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedIn
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
Most Shared
PDF Full Text
+ Translate
+ Recently Requested

Beef thawing and cookery methods effect of thawing and cookery methods time in storage and breed on the microbiology and palatability of beef cuts



Beef thawing and cookery methods effect of thawing and cookery methods time in storage and breed on the microbiology and palatability of beef cuts



Journal of Food Science 43(3): 834-838



Steaks and roasts from Angus and Simmental crossbred steers were evaluated by a 9 member panel and sample cores were sheared on the Instron Universal Testing Device equipped with a Warner-Bratzler shear head. The meat was subjected to 5 different thawing and cooking methods and 2 storage periods. There was a difference (P < 0.01) in microbial numbers (log counts) found on the roasts due to incubation temperature (37.degree. vs. 7.degree. C) and time in storage (fresh, 5 mo. and 10 mo.). The fresh roasts had higher (P < 0.01) mean log counts. Slightly higher total cooking losses were observed for the roasts than for the steaks. The highest Instron shear values for roasts and steaks were recorded for the microwave-thawed and cooked meat. Overall panel satisfaction for both cuts of meats was positively correlated with flavor, juiciness and tenderness. Storage time was negatively correlated with flavor. Breed had no significant effect on flavor, juiciness, tenderness, overall satisfaction or shear values. Differences (P < 0.025) were found between the microwave and conventionally cooked meat, with the microwave-cooked meat having the greatest cooking losses.

Please choose payment method:






(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 004814209

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2621.1978.tb02433.x


Related references

Effects of thawing methods and subsequent cookery on beef quality and eating traits. Progress report Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station: (227) 86-89, 1977

Effects of breed, cookery method and muscle location on beef palatability. 1976

Effects of breed cookery method and muscle location of beef palatability. Journal of Animal Science 42(6): 1556, 1976

Effects of muscle and cookery method on palatability of beef from several breeds and breed crosses. Journal of Food Science 42(5): 1322-1324, 1977

Effect of thawing and cooking methods on palatability and nutritive value of frozen ground meat. 2. Beef. Food Res 15: 249-255, 1950

Study of three cuts of lower and higher grade beef, unfrozen and frozen, using two methods of thawing and two methods of braising. (Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Stat. Memoir No. 341). Study of three cuts of lower and higher grade beef, unfrozen and frozen, using two methods of thawing and two methods of braising, Cornell Univ. Agric. Exp. Stat., 68, 1956

The effect of cookery method on beef palatability and cooking properties. Journal of consumer studies and home economics 12(4): 313-319, 1988

Improvement in the palatability of frozen beef by 0 c storage after thawing. Japanese Journal of Zootechnical Science 61(11): 990-997, 1990

Cookery influences on the palatability of roasts from the beef hip. Canadian Journal of Animal Science 80(4): 783, 2000

Microwave cookery of beef patties: browning methods. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 74(6): 652-656, 1979

Institutional cookery of restructured beef steaks Palatability. Journal of food quality(4): 301-309, 1983

Microwave vs conventional cookery of beef cuts. Progress report Kentucky Agricultural Experiment Station: (227) 90-93, 1977

Optimizing beef chuck flavor and texture through cookery methods. Journal of food science 69(4): SNQ174-SNQ180, 2004

Effect of frozen storage, different thawing methods and cooking processes on the survival of Salmonella spp. and Escherichia coli O157:H7 in commercially shaped beef patties. Meat Science 101: 25-32, 2015

Delayed service cookery of loin cuts of beef. Journal of the American Dietetic Association 48(3): 210-215, 1966