/sensory and nutritional quality of Z-^ boneless turkey rolls as affected by thermal processing conditions for foodservice usagey by ANGELA MARIE DIGIORGIO B.S., Plattsburgh State University, 1984 A MASTER'S THESIS submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Foods and Nutrition KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITY Manhattan, Kansas 1986 Approved by: Major Professor
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
/sensory and nutritional quality of Z-^boneless turkey rolls as affected by
thermal processing conditions for foodservice usagey
by
ANGELA MARIE DIGIORGIO
B.S., Plattsburgh State University, 1984
A MASTER'S THESIS
submitted in partial fulfillment of the
requirements for the degree
MASTER OF SCIENCE
Department of Foods and Nutrition
KANSAS STATE UNIVERSITYManhattan, Kansas
1986
Approved by:
Major Professor
LD^ ii
.T9 TABLE OF CONTENTS\'\t(e A112D2 TbS4Ql
INTRODUCTION 1
REVIEW OF LITERATURE 2
Factors influencing sensory qualities of turkey 2
Oven and internal temperatures 2
Initial state of cooking: fresh versus frozen 4
Method of preparation: dry versus moist heat 5
Method of preparation: type of oven heating 6
Reheating and hot-holding influences on food quality 7
Sensory quality of turkey 8
Factors influencing instrumental measures of turkeymeat tenderness 10
Oven and internal temperatures 10
Initial state of cooking: fresh versus frozen 11
Method of preparation: dry versus moist heat II
Method of preparation: type of oven heating 12
Relationship between sensory and instrumental measurements ... 13
Nutritional evaluation of thiamin in turkey 14
MATERIALS AND METHODS 15
Preparation of turkey rolls ..... 15
Storage 15
Production-roasting 15
Production-holding 17
Production-reheating 17
Sensory analysis 17
Panelist selection and training 17
•M
iii
Page
Preparation of samples 18
Holding and serving of samples 18
Instnamental evaluation of tenderness 19
Preparation of samples 19
Measurement 19
Determination of thiamin content 19
Determination of fat content 20
Determination of moisture content 20
Experimental design and analysis 20
RESULTS 21
Sensory analysis 21
Effect of treatment on sensory and physical measurements .... 26
Sensory studies 26
Physical data 26
Effect of duration of holding period 26
DISCUSSION 31
CONCLUSIONS 34
REFERENCES 36
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS 39
APPENDIX 40
INTRODUCTION
The foodservlce industry; an expanding enterprise composed of
commercial, institutional, and military establishments; serves a wide
sector of the population. Those consumers contribute to the growth and
success of foodseirvice systems, therefore, foods of optimal sensory and
nutritional quality must be prepared.
Various methods of food preparation and service practiced in
hours chilling, reheating, and holding before testing, were cooked in the
same manner as described earlier. At the completion of roasting and the
15 minute standing time, the whole roast was refrigerated at 4°C
overnight.
Prior to reheating, the turkey was sliced so that 800 g of light meat
were obtained. Slicing procedures and slice thicknesses were identical to
those for freshly roasted turkeys. Reheating was done in the convection
oven, set at 105°C, in covered disposable aluminum pans. When two of the
six slices reached an internal temperature of 66°C, reheating ceased and
the 60 minute holding time began. Holding procedures also remained
constant.
Sensory analysis
Panelist selection and training . Twelve panelists from the
Departments of Foods and Nutrition and Dietetics, Restaurant, and
18
Institutional Management were trained during a two-week period (three
hours per week) for sensory analysis of turkey roll samples. From this
pool of panel members, four panelists were selected and assigned randomly
to sampling periods for each treatment and holding time.
Panelists were familiarized with the score card and terminology used
in this study during training sessions. Panel members were served samples
and trained to recognize characteristics of the extremes, or anchors, for
each attribute to be evaluated. A sample score card is included in the
Appendix, Figure A-4.
Preparation of samples . Two 1-cm thick slices of turkey roll from
each holding period were analyzed by panelists. A 1.3 cm diameter corer
was used to cut sample cores from one slice of meat for determining chew
count. The remaining turkey slice was cored into 2.5 cm diameter samples
for evaluating other sensory attributes of the turkey. Remaining portions
of each slice were frozen in laminated polyester polyethylene Seal-a
TMMeal bags for later chemical analysis.
Holding and serving of samples . Turkey cores were placed in 150 ml
glass beakers covered with watch glasses. Each core size had its own
holding beaker. Covered beakers were placed in a pan of hot water at
approximately 62''C on a General Electric warming tray (Model 33WTZ) set
on "HIGH." Glass custard cups, previously oven dried at 200°F (93''C) for
two hours, and watch glasses were warmed in the drawer of the warming tray.
Panelists served themselves, at the designated hour of testing
(Appendix, Table A-5), selecting two cores from each beaker. Reference
samples for aroma, representing partially roasted and over roasted, were
provided each evaluation period. Characteristic aroma was retained in
samples by using covered glass brandy snifters at room temperature.
19
Procedures for preparing reference samples are included in the Appendix,
Table A-6.
Instrumental evaluation of tenderness
Preparation of samples . Three 2 cm thick slices of turkey,
representative of each holding period, were cooled at room temperature to
an internal temperature of 20° C. These 2 cm thick slices were cored
parallel to the fibers into 2 cm diameter samples producing four cores per
slice for a total of 12 samples.
Measurement . Tests for turkey meat tenderness were made using the
puncture probe (0.317 cm diameter) and the Warner-Bratzler shear attached
to an Instron Universal Testing Machine (Model 1122). Two cores from each
holding period were punctured to 50% compression, parallel to the muscle
fibers, using a full scale load of 0.1 (1 kg). A full scale load of 0.2
(2 kg) was used with the shear to measure the force necessary to
completely slice the remaining six samples. These cores were sheared
parallel to the muscle fibers. Chart and crosshead speeds of 100 mm/min
were used. Height of the force-distance curves for compression or
shearing was measured as an indicator of sample tenderness.
Determination of thiamin content
Thiamin was analyzed using 10 g ground light turkey meat by the
thiochrome method (Freed, 1966). The 75 ml of 0.1 N hydrochloric acid
were added to the sample. Samples were immediately blended with a
Brinkmann high speed homogenizer (Serial number 1003), autoclaved,
incubated overnight, diluted, and filtered. The filtrate was collected
and frozen at 0°C for analysis at a later date.
20
Frozen samples were thawed at 4''C in a household refrigerator for
24 hours as needed. Filtrates were purified by addition of activated
Bio-Rex 70 and acid potassium chloride to columns prior to conversion to
thiochrome. Fluorescence was measured with a Coleman Photofluorometer
(Model T6434). Two duplicate readings were averaged for each sample, and
thiamin content (mcg/g) during hot-holding of boneless turkey rolls was
calculated on a moisture-free, fat-free basis.
Determination of fat content
Fat analysis was done using 5 g ground light turkey meat using
methods of Folch et al. (1957) as modified by Chen et al. (1981),
substituting methylene chloride for chloroform. Methodology is given in
the Appendix, Table A-7. Duplicate readings were averaged for each
sample, and percentage of fat was calculated.
Determination of moisture content
Moisture content was analyzed with 1 g ground light turkey meat
using AOAC method 14.003 (1984). Turkey sample was added to pre-weighed
aluminum pans, dried overnight in the Thermotainer drying oven (Model
PW-1) at 150°C, cooled 30 minutes in dessicator, and re-weighed the next
day. Duplicate readings were averaged for each sample, and percentage of
moisture was calculated.
Experimental design and analysis
A split plot design is shown in Table 1 for two of the three
variables, chilling and roasting temperature. Each of those treatment
combinations was held for 0, 60 or 120 min for the third variable. Each
21
replication was completed in a two week period, three days per week, with
one sampling per day. Treatment combinations were randomized for each
replication. Data were analyzed by analysis of variance (ANOVA) and
least square means were determined when significant differences were
present.
RESULTS
Sensory analysis
The ANOVA for sensory data is shown in Table 2. Treatment, roasting
temperature and/or overnight chilling, significantly influenced juiciness
scores of the turkey. Length of hot-holding caused significant differences
in aroma, juiciness, and chew count.
Results obtained using ANOVA for physical and chemical measurements
of turkey samples (Table 3) and cooking loss calculations are given
(Appendix, Table A-8). No differences in instrumental texture evaluations
were found for any of the variables studied. ANOVA was used for
evaluating significance of treatment on thiamin content on a moisture-free,
fat-free basis (Tables 4 and 5). Treatment methods caused significant
differences for thiamin content and for percentage moisture and fat.
Although not significant, total drip loss was less for roasts cooked at
lOS'C than for those roasts cooked at 135° or 165°C (Appendix, Table A-9).
Length of holding time was a significant factor influencing the percentage
of moisture retained. Samples held for 120 minutes contained less
thiamin, moisture-free, fat-free basis, (p£0,05) than those samples held
for and 60 minutes (Appendix, Table A-10). Means for sensory, physical,
and chemical data for all treatments and holding times are given in the
Appendix, Tables A-11 and A-12.
.»»
22
>. /—
\
/-^ /->. ,,—
^
/-^
(U CO -H <• r^ r^ <r o o o CT» O^ <4-l 0) vo r^ r^ <N r-i r^ r-H vO r^ vou M-l 4J • • • • • « • • • •
9 O O o o o o O -1 O CN o ou C ^-^ 'w^ ^»-^ N^ **•
aso0)rH<U
u /-^ /^ /-^ ^-\ /-^
O o CM 00 vO vO m CO r~ r~ en <.£1 i~^ in (N in o in CN fO <J\ CN
U d d d -H* O CM d -H* d do P^ Sw' ^^^ ^^ N^«M
n0)4J «3 CN
^ •-N /^ /-N O ^ y~\•H u 4J vO -^ r^ CO in vo O CX3 r-» mU (U » c sr o a^ o O CN O O o o4J +j <U 3 • • • • • • • • • •
4J 3 ^ o o ^ o o O CM O CN O CN(d 5 CJ u v*^ '^ v-^ ^ ^^y
» Mu 4J
J-l
to cd
a(U >> (U /"^ /^^ /—
N
y^\ /-ves h M ^ ^ vO cs ^ o ro 00 o o
3 CSI ^ O 1^ r^ r^ \0 -3- «3" ^<M M u • • • • • • • • • •
o fi X O -H O ro o o o o O -H(U (U ^^-^ N*-^ *^^ ^-^
4) V3 HU
a•
•H * CJM CO r-H
s CO * /~v y-^ /-S O ^s y*^ in> lU cn cN CS ON CN CO O (T» 00 <r vO
C o o ^ vO CO CN O CO rH in r—
1
M-l •H • • • • • • • • • •
O a o <r O eg O -H O CN O -4 «k
•H >*• N—
'
Nw' CN (JCO 3 s^•H I-) mOB
>> 1—
1
rHOl K ,cs y^ ^-s .^-N -H /-^ ^^ uc8 to in ^ -H cn Cn CO O P^ o o
s 1-H 1—
t
m i^ O ON O CM CN m mg o • • • • • • • • • • og u O <N o o O -H o a\ o ^ ^Hh < N-' N-^ *<«-• s_^ v-^ v^
(U
00
«31-4 <u m CM o CM o
34JCd
uCO
>•a 1—1 ^H 0)
Q. i-H
b S 0)
0) >
1 c §
• 4J OJ
CO rH0) 00
•H CO n 6^
OS
OB
•H U 0) -H in,o 4J J2 4-1 .
c ^-\ cd 60 4-1 CO en 0)o H u5 C CO 0) J3
(U O 4-1 4-14-1 TD iH •O ^ Oj 3tfl C a rH cd II 3 'U•H cd ?• O a H -H CO
1
)-l
CJM ^
C •> 4J> ^—
'
C X 6 X •H 60O Ct»-i U
o•H 4J
•H4J
C CN COen iH i-H CJ
cJ,O c 4J a a ID rH -H
01 cdS!
00 0) 3 rH •> 14H
Table rolls
0)
u
3
sCd
a•H
a.cd
cu
a•H
S4JCdcu
rH -W O -Hto js vo e> u cjo
II •> -Ho CU uH ^ fc- t_5 O W
Cd ^ U -K
Vv'
23
i-i
oU-l
CO
ua(U
E0)
3CO
tfl
<u
S
to
o•H
g
o
cCO
CO
U•HCO
>^
(U
o
>
OB•HCO
to
§
a
9
>
cCO
CO
CO r-i
0) rHM OCO )-i
3D* >>CO 0)
C 1^
CO 3
r CO
en CO
0)
Q) rHr-t (U
,a cCO oH J3
CO
iHCO
CCO
CO
o•He
CU
tj
o
coI-I
CO
c
4-1 ^-.
CO ^sft, v_^
0)
3
CO s~s
o
•H 60e ---
CO 00•H a
UCO ^(U 00
en ^^
o 00
<4-l
Co
uCO
>
>4-l
O
<u
uu3o(/I
<N C7\O Od <r
^ ino u-i
o 00
o 00c^ cs
O r-l o o O r^
* HCen f—i
00 .-^ ^—
^
/-^ O .-V /^-3- r- in m (N m O vO vO u-lO on lO \o O r^ O 00 (^ VO
O ro o o o CM o o o o•^^ ^ •^w
'
r^ S—.'
in
o oO roO vDin p~.
o o
cx> 00 r^ .-H
fO ^ fO .-(
o -< o ^
-* oo ^
in r^00 ^d CD
cCO
C
euCO
OJ
H
O
CO
a
oc:
t^ CMO CN
O CS
vo in
CD d
\0 C»ro ^O —1
in r>-
o oCN -^ in 00
o ^ o o
in 00cs fO
O -H d dC^^ CO
CM
o
CO
O
a.
u
4-1
(U
B4J
CO
OJ
ME-(
0]
s•H
00c•HT)iHO
I
e
oJ2
(U
4->
CO
(U
(Jom
uinCO
oinoi-H"—
'
0)
h34-1
CO
uOJ •
a .Hg 0)
Q) >• 4J lU
CO iH0) 00CO c S-S
<U -H in4= -Ul •
4J CO CO <u
C CO 0) x:(U O 4-1 4-1
t< OS 3CO II a 4Jan •H
sCO
a - u•H OOO a
c CM COCO -H i-H CJ
(U .H •H3 .H M VM
i-H -H o •HCO J= VO c> CJ 001 II * •HfK u o CO
CO -Q O *
24
(UMU9
0)1-1
0)
ao
O>M
aoo
4J
<WO0»
Ufl«1-1
ua>lU
a•Hog
>^-H cn
CO •Hc CD
rt CO
43ao (U
u <U^ urt 1
CO1
4J(U CO
3 'UiHCD M
> <u
1 <u
b uU-l
T) 1
G <u
CO h3
01 4-1
<u CO
u •H<0 O3 BcrCO a
oc10 -a<u 0)
2 CO
1 CO
<r ,o
0) CO
r^ rHU3 iHcd OH M
c0)
oocoo oo•H -^6 60CO e
0)
0)
I
4-1
CO
(U
I
0)
34JCO
•HOS
14-1
cn /-^
O Oo in
CO /^—I o00 CN
O ^ O t^O ITi
CO inm CX3
o cj\ o o o —I o vo o o
<u
0)
u<4-l •K *
1 CS /^ 00 '-^ r^ ^^ <j- ^ \o ^^\0) O r-- CM 00 vo r^ O CN in r^
34-1
O r~ ^ <N ^ vo O CO vO r^
d d O CN d -^ d r-!
•
o•
oCO ^H s..* >^^ N—
'
>-••H x-^
OS
m 00
co H•H4J T)CO 3•H CO
MCO U> ^^
14-1 4-1
o c(U
<u so 4-1
u CO
3 (U
o Vjw H
co
CO
u
o•H
(d
u
Pi0)
ccu
SuCO
(U
H
(U
a
00(3•H
O
u00C3
O
c
a4JCO
<u
uH
en
mo—1^—^
0)
u3uCO
M(U •
a iHa 0)
0) >• 4-1 0)
CO iH0) &0CO c 5^0) -H mrC 4-1 •
4-1 CD CO 0)
a CO (U 4:OJ o 4-1 4-1
u Pi 3CO II C 4Ja H •H
aCO
c .« 4J•H 600 C
3 CN COCO tH 1—1
0) .H •H3 r-l «% U-l
r-( -H O •HCO 42 \o C> U 601 II ^ •H
fa U o COCO ^ u K
25
0)
U
U94JOS
•HO
ao
•o<0
COcd
ou
M4J
a<uiH0)
ao.o
MO
go
<MO
j3ctf
Q)
30)
M
3u*CO
CO
-u •Hca mtd R)
01 ^i-J
1 (UU1 0)
Vj
<U u-l
iH1
-O uCO td
H u-i
c
4-1 00co oo o
H
60
<u
u
I
4J
01
0)
M-i
I
lU
u3
o
43in
J3
o
<r r~ -*CM .-I ^
o
o
CD
C•H
eoo
•uC0)
eu(d01
MH
o o <J
43 43 43ro CN cn
cd ^ ua\ ^a- -<
u
ou-i
O
(Joincri
Um
4=
iH o o oiH u o o•H o4= m m inU o m vO
»—
1
^H ,-H
O»
ino
C0)
Mcu
14-1
4J
Cicd
a
c
OC
0)
cd
uoCO
MOi
(X3CO
Co
oa
00c•H
Cd
4=CO
C
.HOa
Cd
0)
CO
3
Qi
U3
5 e0)
OO CO
C 43Cd o
cd
u0)
cd o.S0)
0)
crfn.fo c;
43 CJ
26
Effect of treatments on sensory and physical measurements
Sensory studies . Roasting temperatures and overnight chilling
significantly influenced the juiciness of boneless turkey rolls (Table 6).
Turkeys roasted at 105°C were juicier (p£0,05) than those roasted at 135"
and ISS^C. All boneless turkey rolls roasted and served the same day were
higher in juiciness than those roasted, chilled overnight, and reheated
prior to sensory evaluation.
Turkey rolls roasted at 105°C without prior cooking and chilling
were significantly higher in juiciness than those roasted at 135° or
165''C and chilled. Furthermore, roasting at 165°C, chilling overnight,
and reheating produced turkey samples that were drier than any turkey
samples which had not been chilled.
Physical data . Thiamin content (mcg/g) and moisture percentage were
significantly higher (Table 7) when turkeys were roasted at 105°C and
served the same day. Roasts cooked at each of the three oven temperatures
and chilled overnight had lower moisture (p£0.05) than those roasts
prepared and served without chilling.
Percentages of fat contained in boneless turkey rolls subjected to
chilling were significantly higher with increased roasting temperature.
However, for those roasts not chilled, a higher (pj<0.05) fat content was
obtained with roasting at 105°C compared to 135° and 165°C.
Effect of duration of holding period
Sensory attributes of aroma, chew count, and juiciness as well as
percentage moisture, were affected (p£0.05) by the length of holding. As
shown in Figure 1, chew count (the number or chews to masticate the
27
ou
>^0)MUouaa<ui-i
a»
(3
O
hOM-l
(0
0)
0)
O.OU
o09
o
OB
g
s0)uId
cs(001
I-]
I
H
CO
(U
3
4J
OCO
c
CO
<4-l (U14-1 4-1
O Oc
ua>
3 C0) 3J= Ou o
(U
3
Cfl n)CSJ r~. CT\1—1 <» ^
« td n)
00 00 oLO CN in
H
CO
CO
0)
3•-3
CO
aou<
ao
CO
c•H
OCJ
c
s4JCO
<u
uH
^ O
CO CO toO r-( fOsf CM in
00 00 <j\
a CO CO
00 CN vO^H in in
3 CO COCO c^ <Ti
-J- o CN
CTi (Tv 00
a43 aCO 43 u00 00 mo CO v£>
VO
CO CO CO
CTi vO OCN < a^
C30 ON CTi
CLJ
ino
umen
m
42
, , • (Uo o o0)
CO44CO
QCO CO CO • *CN cyi t—
(
/—
S
in VO vO to• • • o
00 00 ov •
oVa
44
c
1
CO CO CO MO <r I-H (Ur^ eg CN <4-l
• • • VMm en fO •Hi-H I-H .—
1
>vi-H
44
CO CO CO •H<r en -<r 14-1
VO <Ti CN •H• • a c
00 r^ 00 ClO
•HCO
44
oc
43 43 <uCO CO CO MP~- CTv 0^ COo CN CO •
• • • 44 0)C3^ 00 00 a.
•HV4
U(0
I-I
a3
ons
/mean
.
St
intens
CO CO CO CO •H OCN VO eg
t^fm f-H VO C• • • o t^<n <Ti 00
^ CU
o CO •>
u 43 44O CO
CO CO
&0 rHc •> II
•H CO OM <u
CO B '"TJ4= •H in 0)to 44 ,-H CO
r 3f3 600g C dJ
3 •H d} UT-l T) iH 3
iH o a CJ o rH CO 44i-H u u u u O O CO•H o 42 CO M43 in in m CO CUU o en VO >-i >i a
i-H i-H ^H c O -w B•H 4H -H Q)z CO 4403 -a cc (u <u cCO r-l 4-1 0)
CU o c >o M 6
CO CUO CJ
28
aHr-l
OU
>%4)
JKU9
(DCO
0)1-1
0)
co
MO
a•Hn
u
J3U
cd
cd
uCD
Io
(D
(U
sOiu
D*CD
01
(U
I
CO
H
u CO CO
U .-N fO \o vOCO S-« <T> r-~ COfn w • • •
CO
>. 0)
r-{ MCO 3C 4J /-vCO CO S^
•H -—
'
rH OCO SU•Hs(U
u
c ^•H (JOe^(0 00•H O^3
3 MCO CO /-^u (U 00a J2 M0) W ^'e<u
1^
3CO
CO
(U
6
CoM 0)
u U3 ^CO 60c 1-1 ^M pL, ^^^
co•H4JCO
C•H
6oa
c<u
auCO
<U
\o
^ a aCO 43 ^r^ < <rm CN (N
• • •
u-i <r <r
oJ3 CJ
CO o J3CO vO <rvO VO CTi
• • •
00 r-. r^vO \D vO
JDCO CO
•—
1
T-t ^cn cn (XJ
• • •
o o a^r^ P-- ^
,0 fl ^o CJN CN<r cn <•
CO XI J3\o n <rm <r c^
CO CO cO
\o cyi >3-
CO —( vO
CO CO CO
vo 00 CMfO ro CO
CO CO CO
\o u-i CNu-> in vO
a CO COCM r^ -3-
r>. vo m
T3 -o O, ,U u uo
r-l m m miH o cn vO•H ^H ^H r-l
U
HOO2
O
•auoincn
u
o
4J
ccu
uOi
c(0
o
c00
to
B
0) CO
CO O
(X CO
•H >
a <u
CO CO
^1 J3<u oa.3 <Ti
CO
Co
oo
CO
00c
00 X)c ^•H O
CO
CO o c4-1 CO
3 0)
O(J
O Co o
4J
(U CO
0) U5 0)
CO
CO J3u o<U CO
JS Q cn <
C0J3 a "o
CO
CO
cCO
-a0)
CO
3
Q)
3-uCO
(U
C3,
S0)4J
c
Figure 1-Effect of hot-holding on quality attributes of bonelessturkey rolls; aroma———; chew count'////////////////.
; juiciness ••••••moisture^-*-** .
SENSORYSCORES
30
MOISTURE(%)
- 100
90
-|80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
60
HOLDING TIME (min)
120
31
sample) progressively increased as samples were held for longer periods of
time. Juiciness and moisture content were related in that both decreased
significantly from one holding period to the next. Freshly prepared
samples were juicier and higher in moisture (p_<0.05) when compared to
samples held for two hours. Turkey slices held for 120 minutes had a
stronger roasted aroma (p<0.05) than those held for and 60 minutes.
Means for all sensory and physical attributes as influenced by
holding time at p<0.05 significance are shown in the Appendix, Tables
A-13 and A-14.
DISCUSSION
The intensity of heat penetration, affected by oven roasting and
internal temperatures, types of oven heating, precooking and reheating,
and hot-holding, cause changes in quality attributes of turkey products as
previously reported. In the present study, meat tenderness was influenced
significantly by the length of the hot-holding period. Chew count, based
on the number of chews to masticate the sample, progressively increased
as samples were held for longer periods of time. This decrease in
tenderness may have been caused by denaturation of the muscle proteins,
actin and myosin, resulting from excessive heating (Charley, 1982).
Textural changes result from this process since contractile proteins, such
as actin and myosin, become somewhat tougher as heating progresses
(Fennema, 1985). Another consequence of denaturation of muscle proteins
is a decrease in water-holding capacity, an important factor related to
decreased tenderness with continued hot-holding.
Moisture and juiciness decreased (p<0.05) from one holding period to
the next. Moisture, held in the capillary spaces of raw tissue, is lost
32
as evaporation or drip as the tissue shrinks with heating (Charley, 1982).
Davey and Gilbert (1974) speculated that loss of juice may account for
heat-induced toughening of meat. In the present study, moisture was lost
as evaporation during the hot-holding periods rather than as drip since
meat juices were minimal or absent.
Other researchers noted that turkey meat tenderness, based on sensory
and instrumental measurements, decreased significantly as a result of high
oven roasting temperatures. Mean sensory scores for boneless turkey
roasts cooked in a microwave oven were less tender (p<0.05) than those
samples heated in conventional and convection ovens set at 163''C (McNeil
and Penfield, 1983). In the same study, shear values were lower (p<0.05),
indicating increased tenderness for turkey samples cooked in the convection
oven than for samples heated in the microwave oven. Cornforth and
co-workers (1982) also found sensory scores for tenderness to be lower
(p<0.05) for microwave heated samples while shear values were lower
(increased tenderness) for samples cooked in a gS-S^C oven. These authors
speculated that higher oven temperatures, as with microwave heating, may
have caused internal temperatures to increase beyond the desired end-point
temperature, thus, contributing to toughness of the meat. Tenderness has
been found to increase with increasing internal temperature up to an
optimum after which it decreases (Goodwin et al, , 1962 and Hoke et al.,
1968). In this study, no differences were noted for effect of roasting
temperature on either chew count or texture. However, the scale used for
texture may have confounded two characteristics; mealiness and
stringiness. Further studies to evaluate those attributes on separate
intensity scales would be desirable.
33
Oven roasting temperatures also proved to significantly influence
juiciness of boneless turkey rolls in the present study, agreeing with the
study by Hoke et al. (1967). Based on sensory measurements, roasts cooked
to 105°C were more juicy (p£0.05) than those cooked in ovens set at 135°
and 165°C. Hoke and co-workers noted juiciness to be higher (p<0.05) when
roasting at 325"? (163°C) as opposed to 400°F (204''C). Since moisture is
lost with heating, greater heat intensity, such as high oven temperatures,
would be expected to cause an increased loss of moisture, therefore, a
less juicy product. Increased exposure to heat, such as with precooking
and reheating, also resulted in a less juicy product. Those boneless
turkey rolls subjected to precooking and reheating had significantly lower
moisture than those roasts prepared and served without chilling. Further
exposure to heat with hot-holding and its effect on moisture retention
have been reported previously.
Along with moisture, fat is squeezed from storage areas as connective
tissue shrinks upon exposure to heat (Charley, 1982). In this study, fat
content was higher (p_<0.05) for roasts not chilled and roasted at 105°C
(lower heat intensity) than those roasted at 135° or ISS'C. However, no
clear-cut pattern for fat content related to holding time or treatment was
shown. Thus, variation in the compositional make-up of the turkey rolls
more likely explains the differences in percentage fat contained in the
samples.
Thiamin is heat sensitive and, therefore, altered by thermal cooking
treatments (Ang et al. , 1978). Engler and Bowers (1975) noted turkey
breasts roasted at 350"? (177"'C) retained more thiamin (p<0.01) than meat
cooked slowly at 200°F (93°C). Since drip losses were greater for the
"slow-cooked" than conventionally roasted turkey, the researchers
34
speculated that more thiamin may have been transferred to the drippings.
However, in the present study, thiamin content (mcg/g) was higher
(p£0.05) when turkeys were roasted at 105°C and served the same day.
These roasts were not subjected to further heat exposure (reheating) which
caused a decrease in nutrient losses. Drip losses were approximately
equal for roasts cooked at 105°C and served the same day and those roasts
cooked at 105°C, chilled, and reheated. Therefore, it is unlikely lower
thiamin content, for roasts precooked, chilled, and reheated, was due to
nutrient losses in the drippings.
Aroma was (p£0.01) more stale and rancid in turkey meat that was
precooked and reheated than meat freshly cooked (Cipra and Bowers, 1970).
Lipids of cooked turkey are susceptible to oxidative rancidity which
contributes to off-flavors and aromas (Wilson et al., 1976). In the
present study, turkey slices held for 120 minutes had a significantly
stronger roasted aroma than those held for and 60 minutes. This aroma,
however, was not characterized as stale or rancid.
Results obtained in this study support earlier recommendations given
by Bengtsson and Dagersborg (1978). The most effective measure to maintain
desirable quality in foodservice operations is to hold the time between
preparation and serving to a practical minimian. Low cooking temperatures
(lOS^C) are recommended when they can be scheduled reasonably.
CONCLUSIONS
Based on the results of this study, one can conclude:
1) Roasting at a low oven temperature, 105°C, without prior cooking
and chilling, resulted in greater juiciness than roasting at 135° or
165°C with overnight chilling and reheating.
35
2) Thiamin content (mcg/g) and percentage moisture were high when
turkey rolls were roasted at 105°C and served the same day.
3) Sensory data indicated with increasing holding time, to 120
minutes, boneless turkey rolls became dry and tough (p<0.05) with a strong
roasted aroma.
36
REFERENCES
Ang, C.Y.W., Basillo, L.A., Cato, B.A. , and Livingston, G.E. 1978.Riboflavin and thiamine retention in frozen beef-soy patties andfrozen fried chicken heated by methods used in food serviceoperations. J. Food Sci. 43: 1024.
AOAC. 1984. "Official Methods of Analysis," 14th ed. Association ofOfficial Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.
Bengtsson, N. 1979. Catering equipment design and food quality. In"Advances in Catering Technology," G. Glew (Ed.), p. 121. AppliedScience Publishers, Ltd., London.
Bengtsson, N. and Dagersbog, M. 1978. Fried meat and meat patties—theinfluence of preparation and processing on quality and yield. In"How Ready are Ready-to-serve Foods?," K. Paulus (Ed.), p. 158.S. Karger, New York.
Bourne, M.C. 1983. Correlating instrimiental measurements with sensoryevaluation of texture. In "Sensory Quality in Foods and Beverages:definition, measurement, and control," A. A. Williams and R.K. Atkin(Eds.), p. 155. E. Horwood Ltd., New York.
Bowers, J. A. and Fryer, B.A. 1972. Thiamin and riboflavin in cooked andfrozen, reheated turkey. J. Amer. Diet. Assoc. 60: 399.
Bowers, J. A., Goertz, G.E., and Fry, J.L. 1965. Effect of cookingmethod and skewers on quality of turkey rolls. Poultry Sci. 44(3):789.
Charley, H. 1982. "Food Science," 2nd ed., p. 403. John Wiley andSons, New York,
Chen, I.S., Shen, C.-S.J., and Sheppard, A.J. 1981. Comparison ofmethylene chloride and chloroform for the extraction of fats fromfood products. J. Amer. Oil Chem. Soc. 58(5): 599.
Cipra, J.S. and Bowers, J. A. 1970. Precooked turkey. Flavor and certainchemical changes caused by refrigeration and reheating. FoodTechnol. 24: 85.
Cipra, J.S. and Bowers, J. A. 1971. Flavor of microwave- andconventionally-reheated turkey. Poultry Sci. 50(3): 703.
Cipra, J.S., Bowers, J.A., and Hooper, A.S. 1971. Precooking andreheating of turkey. J. Amer. Diet. Assoc. 58: 38.
Comforth, D.P., Brennand, C.P., Brown, R.J., and Godfrey, D. 1982.Evaluation of various methods for roasting frozen turkeys. J. FoodSci. 47: 1108.
-^
37
Davey, C.L. and Gilbert, K.V. 1974. Temperature-dependent cookingtoughness in beef. J. Sci. Food Agric. 25: 931.
Denton, J.H. and Gardner, F.A. 1981. Effect of processing systems ofselected microbiological attributes of turkey meat products. J.Food Sci. 47: 214.
Engler, P.P. and Bowers, J. A. 1975. Eating and thiamin retention ofturkey breast muscle roasted and "slow-cooked" from frozen andthawed states. Home Econ. Research J. 4(1): 27.
Fennema, D.R. 1985. "Food Chemistry," 2nd ed., p. 773-774. MarcelDekker, Inc., New York.
Folch, J., Lees, M. , and Sloane-Stanley, G.H. 1957. A simple method forthe isolation and purification of total lipids from animal tissues.J. Biol. Chem. 226: 497.
Freed, M. 1966. "Methods of Vitamin Assay," 3rd ed., p. 127.Interscience Publishers, New York.
Fulton, L. and Davis, C. 1974. Cooking chicken and turkey from thefrozen and thawed states. J. Amer. Diet. Assoc. 64: 505.
Fulton, L.H., Hilpin, G.L., and Dawson, E.H. 1967. Palatability andyield of whole and cut-up turkeys roasted from frozen and thawedstates. J. Home Econ. 59(9): 728.
Goertz, G.E. and Stacy, S. 1960. Roasting half and whole turkey hens.J. Amer. Diet. Assoc. 37: 458.
Goodwin, T.L., Bramblett, V.D., Vail, G.E., and Stadelman, W.J. 1962.Effects of end-point temperature and cooking rate on turkey meattenderness. Food Technol. 16(12): 101.
Hill, M.A. , Baron, M. , Kent, J.S., and Glew, G. 1977. The effect of hotstorage after reheating on the flavour and ascorbic acid retentionof precooked frozen vegetables. In "Catering Equipment and SystemsDesign," G. Glew (Ed.), p. 331. Applied Science Publishers, Ltd.,London.
Hoke, I.M. , McGeary, B.K., and Kleve, M.K. 1967. Effect of internal andoven temperatures on eating quality of light and dark meat turkeyroasts. Food Technol. 21(5): 89.
Hoke, I.M. , McGeary, B.K. , and Lakshmanan, F. 1968. Muscle proteincomposition and eating quality of fresh and frozen turkeys. J. FoodSci. 33: 566.
Ibbetson, C.J. , Travnicek, D.M. , Hooper, A.S., and Mitchell, J.D. 1968.Turkey halves braised or pressure cooked from the frozen or defrostedstate. Poultry Sci. 47(6): 1940.
38
Karlstrom, B. and Jonsson, L. 1977. Quality changes during warm-holdingof foods. In "Catering Equipment and Systems Design," G. Glew (Ed.),p. 315. Applied Science Publishers, Ltd., London.
Klein, B.P., Matthews, M.E., and Setser, C.S. 1984. Foodservice systems:time and temperature effects on food quality. North Central RegionalResearch Publication. 111. Agr. Exp. Sta. , Un. of Illinois,Champaign-Urbana , IL
.
Marquess, C.G., Carlin, A.F., and Augustine, G.M. 1963. Factors affectingthe quality of roasted turkey rolls. Food Technol. 110.
McNeil, M. and Penfield, M.P. 1983. Turkey quality as affected by ovensof varying energy costs. J. Food Sci. 48: 853.
Milson, A. and Kirk, D. 1980. "Principles of Design and Operation ofCatering Equipment," p. 190. AVI Publishing Co., Inc., Westport, CT.
Prusa, K.J., Bowers, J.A. , and Chambers, E. IV. 1982. Instronmeasurements and sensory scores for texture of poultry meat andfrankfurters. J. Food Sci. 47(2): 653.
Travnicek, D. and Hooper, A.S. 1968. Effect of cooking method on thequality of turkey breast meat cooked from the frozen state. PoultrySci. 47(4): 1281.
Unklesbay, N., Davis, M.E., and Krause, G. 1983. Nutrient retention inpork, turkey breast, and corned beef roasts after infrared andconvective heat processing. J. Food Sci. 48: 865.
Wilson, B.R. , Pearson, A.M., and Shorland, F.B. 1976. Effect of totallipids and phospholipids on warmed-over flavors in red and whitemuscle from several species as measured by thiobarbituric acidanalysis. J. Agric. Food Chem. 24: 7.
39
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The author would like to express sincere appreciation to Dr. Carole
Setser, Associate Professor, Department of Foods and Nutrition, who
served as major professor, for her assistance throughout the graduate
study. A special thanks also is given for her support as both a mentor
and friend.
Appreciation is extended to Dr. Martha Stone, Associate Professor,
Department of Foods and Nutrition, and Dr. Deborah Canter, Associate
Professor, Department of Dietetics, Restaurant and Institutional
Management, for serving on the supervisory committee; Jean Craig, research
assistant. Department of Foods and Nutrition, for laboratory work; and to
Dr. Dallas Johnson, Professor, Department of Statistics, for analysis of
the data.
Acknowledgment is given to the Department of Dietetics, Restaurant
and Institutional Management, Kansas State University, for use of their
freezer facilities throughout the study.
Finally, I would like to thank those who served on the sensory panel
and all the graduate students, friends, and family who supported me
throughout graduate school. A special thanks is given to Dr. Jean Ostasz
who encouraged me to pursue a graduate degree at Kansas State University.
40
APPENDIX
41
Table A-1-Specifications of boneless turkey rolls
The menu item, turkey roll, selected for use in the study is limited tothe following criteria established by the NC-120 Committee:
a. Product contains one or more critical nutrients; at least oneproduct shall have substantial protein content.
b. Product is fairly uniform in product composition.
c. Product is appropriate to convective and microwave processing.
d. Product is used in large volume by the foodservice industry.
e. Product is of reasonable cost.
f. Product has defined supplier.
g. Product is widely accepted within the general population.
h. Product is of potential importance in the 21st century.
The turkey rolls shall be formulated in accordance with USDA specificationsand furnished by Natick Research and Development Center.
a. The formula for the turkey roasts specified by the USDA is:
Breast meat may replace thigh meat, and either breast meat or thigh meatmay replace skin. The maximum percentage of thigh meat may be exceededif thigh meat replaces skin and the minimum percentage of breast meat isobtained.
b. The finished product requirements for the turkey roasts are:
1. Nine to 17 inches in length.2. Four to seven inches in diameter.3. Eight pounds (minimxnn) to 12 pounds (maximum) weight.4. Netted or string ties (most are netted).5. A minimum of 75% of outer surface covered by skin.6. Netted or tied roasts placed in a sealed moisture-proof
casing.
42
Table A-2-Standardized roasting procedures of boneless turkey rolls
1. Turkey rolls will be shipped to arrive at universities in October1984.
2. Turkey rolls will be stored frozen no longer than three months forany sensory studies or no longer than six months for all otherstudies.
3. Before cooking, turkey rolls will be tempered to 4°C for greater than48 hrs but not greater than 72 hrs. Turkey will be cooked to aninternal temperature of BCC (176°?).
4. Temperatures will be recorded at least every five minutes withpotentiometer thermocouples placed at the geometric center of thepan.
5. Unchilled variables will be roasted according to experimentaldesign, sliced in 1 cm thick slices and served within 30 minutesafter roasting for the time variable.
6. Only light meat will be sampled for measurements.
7. The mass to be held in disposable half size steam table pans withlids is to be 800 g.
8. Turkey meat will be held at 66''C (ISIT) at geometric center of pan(calibrated to arrive at that temperature within 60 minutes).
9. Chilled meat will be chilled at 4°C for 24 hrs before reheating at105°C to 66°C (151°F).
10. A split plot statistical design will be used to analyze data fromthe nutritional and sensory qualities, microbiological and chemicalsafety and energy usage studies.
1
1
Int
CO 1^iH a-3-CO T3 .
> c ot< Q) +1<u u•u CC CO ro•H 0) •
B 0^0) r-+J •3 m Q)
C M•H 4J 3B (3 -w
(U CO
u-i B ^"i-H 4J 0)
CO (XC <U BO M OJ
4J 4-1
•o(U 4^CO •« dCO !S
•"-•
XI oato T)4J cCO ! OJ
CO Oo o cu • to
r-^ <U
T3 +1 BQ) U1—1 "i-i o m•H .
J= O 4J
<J <» c0)
M <u BO M 4J
<4-l 3 CO
U (1)
CO CO wlU M 4-1
tl3 S •"o <u •
4-1 •
M 4J t3 3 r4-1 -H •CO O OM 0.00) -o .
a. c ^a 0) +10) u4-1 3 o1 CO O<U 0) •
B S oH 00H »1 -H <U^ Vj
14J 3
<! C W(U CO
<U B M^ 4J 0)
3 CO a00 (u B•H H <U
fa 4J 4-1
44
c
i
LU
I-
o
0)<o
UJ oI-
o
• • cCO -H •
iH O CN^ CX) 00
u a o0) (U -Mu oC Co•H Cd o
(U •
(U e r-•W VO3 •>
C ro OJ
•H !-i
e w 3C u
iTi Q) ta-4 S M
J-t <u
C n) ao oj s
M 0)
•o -u W0)
CO 4Jto •• c•^ E
•H
COOa,XI
CO c<u
O -Iu ^ a
' CO
•a o 0)
<u +1 eu uCO ••
0) in inj= •
Q) r^ 4Jn vo c
(U
M (U So n wy-i 3 CO
4J (Uto CO 1-1
0) M -u> OJ
u a3 6 —cj Q) i
0} •)^ u •3 C •JJ -H •CO f^H Do*0) Xl •
& C Oe 0) +1lU U4-1 C o
1 CO r>.
(U QJ .
B S vo•H vOH «
1 -H OJeg M
1 U 3<^ C -u
(U CO
QJ B Hu u d)
3 CO D.00 OJ B•HMO)f^ 4J 4J
46
c
1
UJ
z
<UJzLU
Q.
CO a
td o o73 •
C r-t
Q) +ru
a o
0) •
e o00
•H -3-
B ua0)
BCo
0)
CO
to
CO
CO
ou
XI
ac3
O<4-l
CO
(U
>
3o
(U
M34-1
(0
V4
0)
o.s(U4-1
I
(U
^HI
roI
<:
34-1
CO
u0)
e0)
•Ho
C0)
O 0)
+1 eo"
00
(U
u3
CO
!-i
<U
a.S -
o ma CMT3 .
C -1(U +1u
C oCO r~»
OJ .
B O00
CM
OJ eU 4J
3 CO
(30 (U
•H >J
Fzj 4J
M34-1
CO
0}
o 48
IO00
o
V
\
c
IliJ
I-
I-cn<O
L
o00
o
\ X \
I
o
v\o
o
N\xVv
1o
\\v..% -
I
Ao o o
UU,
Uj oI-
"^
49
C!
o
CO
c•H
oo
uc(U
e4-1
to
<u
u
oCO
MO
0)
u
to
M
aB<u
oo.•oB(U
acd
(0
(U
00
(0
§Q)
IJ:
0)iH.aCDH
c<u
6uto
0)
uH
Uin
r-4 u•Hx: LOo cn
t-H
os
ino
J2
uin
uinin
uoino
+1
eg
+1in
+1
inm
OVO •
• mo t-H
+1 +1o- o
• •
eg 00CO 0^
O r^• •
+1 +1
• •
n (3^
o r-^• •
tx5 <r+1 +1in CM
• •
00bO BC -H•H -UW to
CO (U60 to j:^ o <u
OCS Qd
+1
OCO
en
+1
o00
•
o+1CO
00
m 00
o+1CO
O+1O
•
O m• •
^ o+1 +1
• •
O vO00 \o
• •
-H O+1 +1o m• •
O r-00 vO
0)
U9u(dVI«aa0)
oa
6060 cc •H•H 4J4J to
to 0)
to Bo (U
oa Oti
50
Table A-4-Procedure for calculating cooking losses
A) Before cooking1. wt of drip pan and rack (g)2. wt of roast (g)3. wt of drip pan, rack, and roast (g)
B) After cooking1. wt of drip pan, rack, roast, and drip (g)2. wt of drip pan, rack, and drip (g)
C) Cooking losses1. due to evaporation (g) (A3-B1)
2. due to drip (g) (B2-A1)3. total (g) (C1+C2)
D) Cooking losses as percent of weight of uncooked roast1. due to evaporation (%) (100xCl/A2)
2. due to drip (%) (100xCl/A2)
3. total (%) (D1+D2)
Figure A-4-Sample score card used for sensory evaluation of bonelessturkey rolls.
52
INTENSITY RATINGS: TURKEY ROLLSLIGHT MUSCLE
NameDate
Place a vertical line across the horizontal line at the point representingyour perception of the characteristic's intensity. Re-testing ispermitted.
AROMA
Partially cooked Roasted
JUICY MOUTHFEEL
Very dry Very juicy
TEXTURE
Fibrous, stringy Crumbly, mealyChew count
FLAVOR: MEATY, COOKED TURKEY
None Intense
FLAVOR: OFF-NOTES
None Strong, stale
Thank You!
53
Table A-5-Servlng and testing schedule of sensory analysis of bonelessturkey rolls
Serving times for panelists
Day Treatment 60 120^
1 : 00pm 2 : 00pm 3 : 00pm
9:30am 10:30am 11:30am
1:00 2:00 3:00
1:00 2:00 3:00
9:30 10:30 11:30
1:00 2:00 3:00
1:00 2:00 3:00
9:30 10:30 11:30
1:00 2:00 3:00
1:00 2:00 3:00
9:30 10:30 11:30
1:00 2:00 3:00
1:00 2:00 3:00
9:30 10:30 11:30
1:00 2:00 3:00
1:00 2:00 3:00
9:30 10:30 11:30
1:00 2:00 3:00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
1
6
4
4
3
5
5
1
6
3
2
2
4
2
5
3
6
1
Hot-holding times in minutes.
54
Table A-6-Procedures for preparing reference samples for aroma'
Partially roasted Over roasted
1. Place 2 X 2 cm sampleof raw turkey in4J5 X 2J5 X 1%" loaf pan.
2. Add just enough waterto cover bottom of pan.
3. Cover with aluminum foil,
4. Roast at AOCF for2 minutes.
1. Place 2 X 2 cm sampleof raw turkey in4% X 2I5 X 1I5" loaf pan.
2. Do not add water to
pan.
3. Do not cover pan.
4. Roast at 400°F for40 minutes.
Partially roasted=slightly raw turkey aroma; Over roasted=intense cookedturkey aroma.^Roasting was done in a Whirlpool electric range (Model RFE950P).
55
Table A-7-Procedure for the determination of fat content^
1. Preparation of sample
a. Grind meat sampleb. Place 5 g ground sample in cultured tubes
2. Extraction of lipids
a. Add 15 ml 2:1 methylene chloride methyl alcohol to sampleb. Thoroughly blend (15 seconds) with high speed homogenizerc. Shake 5 minutes with standardized shakerd. Filter the homogenate
3. Washing of crude extract
a. Add 4 ml 0.73% NaCl solutionb. Shake 2 minutesc. Centrifuge 2 minutesd. Siphon aqueous (top) layer
4. Calculation of fat content
a. Place methylene fat (bottom) layer in pre-weighed aliiminum pansb. Evaporate to dryness overnightc. Heat at 120''C in drying oven (Thermotainer , Model PW-1) 1 hourd. Cool in dessicator 30 minutese. Re-weigh pansf. % fat=total weight (weight of pan after evaporation, drying,
cooling)-weight of pre-weighed pan x lOO
aFolch, Lees, and Sloane-Stanley (1957) as modified by Chen, Shen, andSheppard (1981).Weigh pans were dried at 149° C l^ hours, cooled in dessicator 30 minutes,and weighed.
56
CO
to
(U
iH<u
coXI
)-l
o
(0
<u
CO
to
o
00c•H
ooa
M-l
o
01
ocCO
•Hu
>
o
CO
•Hto
>>
to
cto
sou
CO
0)
3iHCO
>I
cCO
CO
01
MCO
3crto
cCO
0) CO
S .HI -H
CX5 O
0) 0)
X> MCO 3H 4J
CO
0)
to
to
o
60C•H
OO
CM
to
4-1
o
•Hl-i
a,CO
>0)
o4-1
uT3
ato
>0)
(X3 r-~
CO -H
O —I
o o
en ^o ^
CM r~CM \0
o ^
O ^3^
O CM
-H CJ^
o -<
u-t mTJ
^c ^-\
o H•H4-1 •aCO c•H CO
UCO u> ^
14-1 4J
O C!0)
(U B(J 4-1
M CO
3 OJ
O 1-1w H
in •
o 0)• Mo 3V 4J
D. tov-/ u
0)M a
CO 6•H 0)to 4-1
01
x: aoW cc •H0) 4Ju CO
to to
a. oPCi
c II
•H Hto Mcu rH3 rHi-t •Hto J3> U1 II
P^ UCO JC3
57
ou
3
OS
OS
0)rH0)
ao
o
a«01ao
60
Jit
oou
iH vO ro 0^td m >* 004J • • •
o IT) n CNu
CO
01
en
to
oiH
Q. CVJ o CO(30 •H <r 00 vOC M • •
•H •T3 CSJ 1—
1
d4JCO
<u
JZ01
oi
O. 00 cn vO« r—
*
m C^J
> • « •
0) CO i-H «N
CO
<u
CO
CO
o
00c•H
OO
•a
o•H
cdHMCO
>4-1
o
0)
u
3Om
00 00
.-H o^
in
00
>3- ro
u-i in
men
om o0^
CM
VO VO toin —
<
o
00 en
in00
in(Ti in
0^ ^H
Oino
CJ
inro
oinVO
X!U
iH u (LJ o y-i
rH o o <w•H m m in •H^ O CO vO TJU f-H t-H r-l
OO
crf^
cCO
0)
M
o.
CO
co
cu
CO
,ao
0)
(U
VI
JZ
mo
CO
aCO
0)
aDOao
c:
3o
0)
M(U
CO
<u
o
(U
58
Table A-10-Least square means of thiamin content for boneless turkeyrolls on a moisture-free, fat-free basis
Source of variation
Holding times (min)
60
120
Thiamin content(mg/100 g)
Moisture-free Moisture-free, fat-free
0.15'
0.14'
0.13
0.18'
0.18'
0.15
Means in a column sharing a common superscript are not significantlydifferent (p_<0.05); Data were pooled for chill vs no chill and cookingtemperatures; 18 observations /mean.
Table A-11-Least square means of sensory data for each treatmentcombination