Effect of Meat Type and Cooking Method on Cooking Yields

Effect of Meat Type and Cooking Method on Cooking Yields

1, LW Douglass 2, M Daniel 1, JM Holden JM Roseland R l d1, JR Willi Williams1, M Duvall D ll1, B Showell Sh ll1, KY P Patterson tt D gl D i l1, JC Howe H H ld 1 1Nutrient Data Laboratory, y, Agricultural g Research Service,, US Department p of Agriculture, g , Beltsville,, MD 2Consultant, Consultant Longmont Longmont, CO

MATERIALS & METHODS

INTRODUCTION

USDA ffood d composition iti data d t supportt efforts ff t off the th USDA Food F d Safety S f t and d I f Information ti Service S i (FSIS) and d the th retail t il meatt iindustry d t tto iinitiate iti t single i l iingredient di t meatt labeling l b li [1] which hi h became b mandatory d t in i March M h 2012. 2012

Pork shoulders were placed on rack in roasting pan for braising braising, with water added added. Cuts were braised in covered pan in oven until tender tender, cooled for 5 minutes minutes, then weighed weighed.

NDL h has conducted d t d severall collaborative ll b ti studies t di with ith scientists i ti t in i the th meatt iindustry d t and d universities i iti to t update d t values l on cooking ki yields i ld in i meats. t These Th data d t are used d t develop to d l nutrient t i t values l for f moisture, i t ffat, t vitamins it i and d minerals. i l To T maintain i t i the th quality lit off cooking ki yield i ld d data, t it is i essential ti l to t review i and d update d t existing i ti data d t and d acquire i new d data t as needed d d. This reportt summarizes Thi i the th results lt off multiple lti l studies t di which hi h indicate i di t the th iimpactt off meatt type, t cooking ki method, th d and d fat f t content t t on the th amountt off cooking ki yield i ld and d th the extent t t off moisture i t and d fat f t changes h th t occur during that d i cooking. ki

http://www.ars.usda.gov/nutrientdata ttp // a s usda go / ut e tdata

Beef steaks were grilled to final internal temperature of 70° 70 C and weighed when removed from grill. grill

Unless otherwise noted above, samples were allowed to stand after cooking while monitoring the rise in internal temperature in order to obtain a peak temperature, which was considered the final internal temperature (Table 1A). Weights were obtained for both raw and cooked samples. Nutrient analysis: y Raw and cooked meat samples p were chemically y analyzed. y Moisture content was determined using g AOAC method 950.46 [[4]. ] Fat was determined using g the acid hydrolysis y y method (AOAC ( 954.02 [4]) [ ]) or chloroform/methanol c o o o / et a o method et od (Folch ( o c et a al. [5]) [5]).

Table 1A: Effects of cooking on cooking yields yields, moisture and fat change in beef and pork cuts

Meat Source

Beef

Pork

Cooking C ki Method M th d1 (Oven (O Temp)/Final Temperature

Cuts

Note: To calculate % moisture and fat change g for p pork cuts in this report, p , EP consisted of the lean only yp portions;; EP for beef cuts and ground g products p were comprised p of lean and fat portions. p

Statistics: Means,, standard deviations and frequencies q were used to generate g one-wayy analysis y of variance (ANOVA) ( ) to test the statistical significance g of differences in cooking g yields y due to meat source,, cut/cooking g method within beef and within p pork,, and g ground p product fat category g y ((high, g , medium,, and low)) within beef and within p pork. Tukey’s y HSD method was incorporated p as needed in the analysis y to identify y significant g differences in means. The same method of analysis y was used for moisture change g and fat change g where data were available.

Figure 1: Effect of cooking method on cooking yields for beef and pork cuts

% Moisture Change4

% Cooking Yield 2

3

Shoulder p pot roast,, boneless,, trimmed to 0" fat,, all grades g Braised (250°F) ( ) / 85oC Rib eye steak, bone-in, lip-on, trimmed to 1/8" fat, all grades Broiled / 70oC Rib eye roast, bone-in, trimmed to 1/8" fat, all grades Roasted (325°F) / 60oC

n 68-71 36 34-35

Mean ((SD)) 66c ((6.1)) 86a (4.0) 77b (2.9)

P-value