126

Journal q(Food Protection Vol. 42. No.2, Pages 126·130 (February, 1979) Copyright@ 1979, International Association of Milk, Food, and Environmental Sanitarians

Quality of Restructured After Refrigerated and Frozen Storage 1

H. W. OCKERMAN* and C. S. ORGANISCIAK2

Animal Science Department, The Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210 and Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp/article-pdf/42/2/126/1649013/0362-028x-42_2_126.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 The Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center. Wooster, Ohio 44691

(Received for publication May 11, 1978)

ABSTRACT Flaked products have also been shown to possess greater This experiment evaluated a procedure for converting forequarter water holding capacity (12) than ground patties. beef tissue into a fabricated -like product and to test its Tumbling or massaging is a rather recent technique refrigerated and frozen storage characteristics. The restructured steaks (10,17.18,19,23,25,27-29) for mechanically agitating were manufactured by tumbling thin slices of beef arm chuck roast muscle tissue and extracting a protein exudate which will with salt (2%) and added water (3%) and then passing this product improve binding characteristics. This method can be through a mechanical patty machine. Refrigerated (4 ± 2 C) samples were evaluated at 0, 3. 5 and 10 days of storage. Frozen (- 23 ± 3 C) used to bond together pieces of . Adding salt in the samples were evaluated after 0, 1, 2, and 3 months of storage. An amount of at least 0.6o/o helps extract salt-soluble acceptable steak-like product was manufactured; however its raw proteins to the meat surface (31). As salt level and visual appearance and raw odor deteriorated quickly and its cooked massaging times increase, the amount of protein in the palatability characteristics deteriorated with both types of storage. exudate increases (26,30). Salt at 2 o/o appears to be probably due to oxidation. optimal (27). The objective of this research was to utilize the tumbling technique as part of a process for fabrication of The concept of restructuring meat is not new and has restructured meat and to evaluate this product during its origin in loaf and casing-type products that were both refrigerated and frozen storage. cooked to bind the tissues. Meat patties are also an attempt to form larger pieces of meat from ground product in the uncooked state. These types of products, MATERIALS AND METHODS however, have a texture that is characteristic of comminuted meat. Recently, many technological ad­ Preliminary research evaluated such factors as beef tissue types vances and processing combinations have been used in (round, chuck, shank tissue from Standard through Choice grades), chilling temperatures (-3, 0, 3, 6, and 9 Cl. grinding (4.7-, 9.5· and attempts to make the restructured product more closely 22.2-mm plates) and slicing (1, 3, 6 and 9 mmJ to alter meat particle resemble a solid piece of meat from the textural sizes, salt (0, 1. 2 and 3%) and moisture levels (0, 1, 3, and 5% standpoint (3-6,1l.l3.14.20,22). addition), tumbling duration (10 min/h for 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 h), and Mandigo (13) identified some of the advantages of patty-forming techniques (hand and machine patties of 75-, 110- and restructuring meat which included better utilization of 140-g sizes). The most successful (fresh appearance and organoleptic characteristic) combinations were used in this research project. lower value meat resources and increased processor This experiment used muscle tissue from U.S. Good grade beef arm control over physical and chemical composition of the chuck roasts which weighed approximately 4.5 kg. This tissue was product. The flake cutting method for preparing meat cooled to 3 ± 1 C and sliced on a Hobart Slicer to a thickness of for restructuring increases cohesiveness and bind (5) when 3 ± 0.5 mm. As nearly as possible, slicing was accomplished compared to a ground product. Flaked-cut patties can be perpendicular to the muscle fiber, yielding approximately 7So/o perpendicular slices and the remaining 25% varying from this position used in the place of ground patties when a coarser grind to parallel to the muscle fiber. and a more steak-like texture are desired. Flaked-cut To the raw meat, 2 o/o salt and 3 o/o water (based on meat block) were patties display greater cohesiveness and bind and have a added and all ingredients were mixed together and placed in a tumbler less greasy organoleptic quality than ground patties (21). constructed at Ohio State University. This equipment was manu­ factured from a stainless steel drum (56-cm diameter and 85-cm depth) containing three baffles. The tissue was tumbled in a 2 ± 2-C cooler, for 10 min out of each hour, for 6 h, at 12 revolutions per min. 1Approved for Publication as Journal Article 8·78 of The Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center. Wooster, Ohio 44691. The tumbled beef tissue was formed into 24 oval-shaped patties 2MinistryofAgriculture, Vet. Dept.. 30 Wspolna, Warsaw, Poland. (140 5-g weight, 14.7-cm length. 10.2-cm width, and 1.2-cm thick) by RESTRUCTURED STEAK 127 a Hollymatic Patty Machine, Model #500. Salt and proximate analyses like product. Cohesiveness and odor were improved by were done by modified (!6) AOAC methods(!) on each production lot. cooking (Table 1). Other characteristics of the cooked Patties were packaged three per Barrier Bag (Cry-0-Vac Type B-620 Barrier Bag water vapor transmission, 0.5- 0.6 g per 645 cm2 in 24 h product (visual acceptability, steak texture, tenderness, at 38 C and 100% relative humidity; oxygen transmission, 30-55 cc per flavor, juiciness and general acceptability) were in a m2 in 24 h at 23 C and one atmosphere) and the air was evacuated by a range considered acceptable for cooked steak products Cry-0-Vac laboratory vacuum pump (Model Number CV-UJ to (previous steak panels, same laboratory). Freezing and 450"' 25 mm of mercury. The bags were closed using a Poly-Clip thawing (Table 1) had no real effect on any of the cooked Applicator Unit (Type SCH2210) and were visually checked after storage. quality attributes. From each of the six production lots, a sample of three patties TABLE 1. Least square means and analysis of variance comparison (140 5-g each) for each sampling period were packaged together and of steaks before (refrigerated storage, 0 time) and after freezing and stored for 0, 3, 6 and 10 days at 4 ± 2 C and an equal number of thawing lfrozen storage. 0 time). samples (patties) from the same production lot were frozen at 23 ± 3 C, stored for 0, 1, 2 and 3 months in a freezer at 23"' 3 C Ref. storage and thawed (5 h at 20 ± 3 C) before evaluation and cooking. 0-days Change during Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp/article-pdf/42/2/126/1649013/0362-028x-42_2_126.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 After being stored under these conditions, patties were evaluated by Parameters Least square freezing and evaluated mean tltawinga a six-member trained panel to determine the individual levels of each character of quality such as color, odor, and cohesiveness of the raw product. All panel members had at least 5 years of meat panel Uncooked odorc 7.23 ~ 1.16 * experience and were given samples, during training, of the extremes of Uncooked cohesivenessd 7.50 0.29 NS Cooked visual acceptabilitye 8.05 + 0.12 NS all factors to be evaluated. The evaluation scale ranged from 1 Gight, Cooked cohesivenessf 8.05 + 0.22 NS stale meat odor, not cohesive) to 10 (dark, fresh meat odor, very Cooked odorg 8.02 ~ 0.05 NS cohesive). After each storage treatment, the raw beef tissue was Cooked steak textu.reh 7.22 + O.OZ NS examined for aerobic and anaerobic organisms. Cooked tenderness1 8.10 0.20 NS Aerobic organisms were determined by standard techniques ~.16) Cooked flavori 8.20 ~ 0.35 AS using Tryptone Glucose Extract Agar and incubating at 25 C for 48 h. Cooked juicinessk 7.75 ~0.30 NS Anaerobic organisms were also determined by standard techniques Cooked general acceptability! 8.10 - 0.17 NS using Baltimore Biological Laboratory (BBL) Anaerobic Agar and Uncooked aerobic {log/g) 5.31 + 0.03 NS incubating in a C0 atmosphere at 25 C for 5 days. In both instances Uncooked anaerobic {log/g) 3.47 + 0.55 NS 2 Uncooked TBA number 2.28 + 2.72 AS the number of organisms were expressed as the log of the number per Uncooked 5.60 0.00 NS gram of tissue. Rancidity of the raw tissue was determined by TBA analysis (16) and =non-significant; AS approach significance, lOo/olevel. pH was measured with a Beckman Expandomatic SS-2 pH meter (16). * = significance at 5% level. bl =light, 10 dark. Patties were broiled (approximately 5 min first side, 3 min second c1 =stale meat odor, 10 =fresh meat odor. side) in a Hotpoint Broiler (Model #201B17), to an internal temperature dt very cohesive. 10 =not cohesive. of 65 ± 2 C and each character of quality was evaluated for visual e1 stale appearance, 10 fresh appearance. acceptance. cohesiveness, odor, texture, tenderness, flavor, juiciness f1 =not cohesive. 10 very cohesive. and general acceptability by the same· trained panel (different time) g I = stale meat odor, 10 = fresh meat odor. using the same 1 (stale appearance, not cohesive, stale meat odor, ?1 crumbly texture, 10 solid meat texture. crumbly texture, extremely tough, stale flavor, dry, unacceptable) to 10 ~ 1 extremely tough, 10 extremely tender. (fresh appearance, very cohesive, fresh meat odor, solid meat texture, l I = stale flavor, 10 = fresh flavor. extremely tender, fresh flavor, very juicy, acceptable) scale. k I = dry, 10 very JUicy, 11 unacceptable, 10 =acceptable. This experiment was replicated six times and the data were analyzed by Harvey's (9) Least Squares Analysis of Data with Unequal Subclass Frequency. Stored product characteristics Uncooked product evaluation. Uncooked product color scores increased (darker) significantly (Table 2) RESULTS AND DISCUSSION during refrigerated (P < 0.05) and frozen storage Non-stored product characteristics (P < 0.01). The largest increases occurred during Analysis of the raw patties indicated their composition freezing-thawing and in early stages of refrigerated was as follows: protein 16.9 ± 0.9o/o, fat 14.7 ± 4.1 o/o, storage. This darkening in raw product color agrees with moisture 65.9 ± 3.8o/o, ash 2.9 ± OAo/o and salt 2.1 ± results of Schwartz et al. ()4) for flake-cut restructured OA o/o. The results of this research indicate that an pork. Gokalp (7) found little color change in a acceptable product was produced by the tumbling vacuum-packed patty (no NaCI) that had method of manufacturing restructured steaks (Table 1). been stored at -22 C for 135 days. Uncooked product All quality attributes of the raw product immediately color scores from the refrigerated product showed a after manufacture were in the range normally expected positive correlation (Table 3) with raw TBA values for steak-like products when compared with previous (P < 0.01). The same was true with frozen patties steak taste panels from this same laboratory and with the (P < 0.05). The increase in TBA values (Table 2) suggests same panel members. The uncooked color darkened fat oxidation during storage. The literature (8,15) (P < 0.05) during freezing-thawing and the uncooked suggests this was probably accelerated by the salt and odor scores also decreased (more stale) at the P < 0.05 retarded by vacuum packaging. level. All other uncooked product attributes remained Uncooked product odor became more stale (P < 0.05) relatively constant during freezing-thawing. Cooking the during refrigerated storage (fable 2). The same decrease non-stored product resulted in a very acceptable steak- was noted with the frozen product up to 60 days, after 128 OCKERMAN AND ORGANISCIAK

TABLE 2. !.east squares mean for variables

Frozen storage, days Days

Uncooked odorc 4.18 4.31 Uncooked cohesivenessd 7.50 7.51 7.56 7.21 7.23 7.01 7.26 Cooked visual acceptabilitye 8.05 8.51 8.23 8.17L• 8.36 8.11 7.86 Cooked cohesivenessf 8.05 8.41 8.43 8.27L'" 8.23 7.96 7.81 Cooked odorg 8.02c"' 8.06 7.33 7.55 7.97L** 7.68 7.01 6.71 Cooked steak textureh 7.55Q* 7.81 7.75 7.11 7.57L'" 7.71 7.43 7.00 Cooked tendernessi 8.10 7.80 7.76 7.60 7.90L"' 7.80 7.58 7.23 Cooked tlavorj 8.2oLu 7.90 7.41 6.76 7.85L* 7.18 6.96 6.73 Cooked ju icinessk 7.75 7.80 7.58 7.21 7.45 7.51 7.85 6.98 Cooked general acceptability] 8.10L** 8.08 7.71 7.36 7.93L** 7.61 7.48 6.90

Uncooked aerobic (log/g) 5.31L** 5.60 6.02 6.49 5.34 5.51 5.40 5.41 Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp/article-pdf/42/2/126/1649013/0362-028x-42_2_126.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 Uncooked anaerobic Oog/g) 3.47 4.14 4.79 4.14 4.02 4.65 4.33 4.47 Uncooked TBA number 2.28Q'" 6.25 8.31 9.50 5.00 5.56 4.80 6.23 Uncooked 5.60 5.60 5.58 5.55 5.6oc,. 5.66 5.93 5.75 quadratic, C = cubic,* 5%1evel of significance."'"' 1 o/o level of significance. cl = meat odor, lO =fresh meat odor. d1 =very cohesive. lO =not cohesive. ~I =stale appearance, lO =fresh appearance. f1 =not cohesive, 10 very cohesive. gl stale meat odor, 10 fresh meat odor. ht crumbly texture, 10 solid meat texture. 11 extremely tough, lO =extremely tender. lJ =stale tlavor, lO =fresh flavor. k1 =dry, 10 very juicy. It = unacceptable, 10 = acceptable. which the values stabilized and remained relatively ence was the darkening (P < 0.05) of color during constant. These lower panel uncooked product odor freezing (fable 1). Cooking greatly improved low scores during refrigerated storage (fable 2) are in uncooked product odor scores; however, it did not accordance with increased TBA values. The correlation change the general downward trend that occurred over (fable 3) with TBA was negative (r = 0.79, P < 0.01) storage time (Table 2). during refrigerated storage and was also negative Cohesiveness scores were slightly higher (fable 2) for (r 0.25) during frozen storage but not at a significant the cooked than the uncooked product. As with raw level. Uncooked TBA values (fable 2) increased samples, length or type of storage had little or no effect on (P < 0.05) during refrigerated storage of the restructured cohesiveness values. samples. The uncooked TBA values in the frozen In both the refrigerated and frozen phase, cooked samples fluctuated over time. This suggests that the steak texture decreased slightly (Table 2) during storage decrease in odor desirability is at least partially due to but remained very acceptable for all samples evaluated. the presence of products from oxidative processes that There appeared to be no real difference between cooked occurred during storage. steak texture scores for these two types of storage Aerobic bacteria counts increased (P < 0.01) with procedures. As would be expected, steak texture scores refrigerated product storage time, but remained rela­ were positively and significantly correlated (P <0.01) with tively unchanged in frozen samples (fable 2). The cooked product cohesiveness scores (fable 3). difference is most likely due to storage temperature Cooked product tenderness scores (Table 2) from the differences. Anaerobic counts increased in the refriger­ refrigerated product remained relatively constant during ated product up to the sixth day, then decreased. storage; while the scores for frozen products decreased Anaerobic counts remained relatively stable in the frozen slightly but again remained in an acceptable range product. (previous steak panel, same laboratory). Cohesiveness was very acceptable as rated by the Mean scores for steak texture (Table 2), indicate that panel. The product approached a solid piece of meat in this new method of forming steak-like product resulted appearance and texture. Cohesiveness values remained in a product with a desirable steak texture. Furthermore, relatively constant during both refrigerated and frozen this desired texture was accompanied by an acceptable storage (Table 2). degree of tenderness. Cooked evaluation. Cooking the tissue gave higher Longer storage time for refrigerated and frozen (Table 2) visual acceptability scores than those of products (fable 2) decreased cooked product flavor uncooked tissue of the refrigerated product. Cooking scores. This trend was more pronounced in the slightly lowered visual acceptability scores in the non-frozen samples. Flavor scores of the refrigerated freezer-stored product. An explanation for this differ- product correlated (P < 0.01) with TBA values (r = TABLE 3. Correlation vtlluesa.

Cooked Cooked Cooked Cooked Cooked Cooked Uncooked Uncooked Uncooked Uncooked Uncooked general juici- Cooked tender- steak Cooked cohesive- visual cohesive- Uncooked Characteristic pH TBA anaerobic aerobic accept. ness flavor ness texture odor ness accept. ness odor Uncooked color -0.03 0.71 ** 0.45* 0.59** - 0.48* 0.09 0.70** -0.35 .0.32 0.28 0.13 0.03 - 0.75** Uncooked odor 0.22 0.79** -0.35 -0.43* 0.39 0.34 0.60** 0.44* om 0.41* 0.28 0.26 0.23 -0.61 ** i;tl Uncooked cohesiveness 0.27 0.05 0.15 O.Ql trl 0.35 0.44* 0.21 0.48* O.Q7 0.09 0.51** 0.15 0.24 0.19 Vl Cooked visual acceptability 0.02 0.17 0.22 O.ot 0.29 -0.06 0.06 0.03 0.24 -Q.04 >-l 0.52** 0.24 0.32 -0.28 i;tl Cooked cohesiveness 0.17 0.44* 0.33 0.03 0.27 0.16 0.15 0.14 0.28 O.o7 0.69** 0.28 0.53** -0.27 c:: Cooked odor 0.04 0.39 0.19 0.07 0.38 0.40* 0.54** 0.17 0.11 0.59** 0.44* 0.16 0.74** 0.47* n >-l Cooked steak texture 0.15 0.08 0.06 0.31 0.39 0,03 0.27 0.04 0.51** 0.67** 0.58** 0.39 0.44* 0.31 c:: Cooked tenderness 0.30 0.34 -0.39 0.61**' 0.51** 0.43* 0.60** 0.73** 0.20 0.29 i;tl 0.43* 0.34 0.34 0.12 trl Cooked flavor 0.22 0.61** 0.42** 0.59** 0.74** 0.60** 0.46* 0.44* 0.72** 0.42* 0.33 0.37 0.77** 0.40* 0 Cooked juiciness 0.29 0.14 0.23 0.13 0.50* 0.30 0.57** - 0.03 Vl 0.42* 0.02 0.22 0.40* - O.ot 0.16 >-l Cooked general acceptability 0.17 -0.42* O.ot - 0.48* 0.50* 0.79** 0.57** 0.68** 0.73** 0.50* 0.64** 0.36 0.62** 0.45* trl ;> Uncooked aerobic 0.11 0.52** 0.52** 0.09 0.15 0.12 0.32 0.19 0.03 O.ol -0.14 0.06 -Q.09 0.23 :;><: Uncooked anaerobic O.Dl 0.26 0.82** 0.07 0.02 -0.12 0.07 O.ot 0.06 -0.05 0.11 -0.55 -0.20 0.28 Uncooked TBA 0.25 0.45* 0.53** 0.05 0.12 -0.02 0.03 -0.02 0.08 0.08 0.02 0.30 0.25 0.47* Uncooked pH 0.04 0.11 0.09 -0.14 0.12 --0.09 0.14 -0.08 0.25 -0.05 0.05 0.17 0.36 0.23 = refrigerated; lower-right frozen. of significance **- J %level ofsignificance

N

-\C Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp/article-pdf/42/2/126/1649013/0362-028x-42_2_126.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 September 28 on guest by http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp/article-pdf/42/2/126/1649013/0362-028x-42_2_126.pdf from Downloaded 130 OCKERMAN AND ORGANISCIAK

-0.61), uncooked product anaerobic (r =-0.42; P < 0.05) 12. Mandigo, R. W. 1974. Restructured meat. Proc. 27th Ann. and uncooked product aerobic (r =-0.59; P <0.01) Reciprocal Meat Conf. Am. Meat Sci. Assoc. 403-415. 13. Mandigo, R. W. 1975. Restructured meat. Proceedings of the Meat counts (Table 3). One or a combination of these might Industry Research Conference, American Meat Institute Found­ explain the decrease in flavor acceptability. ation, 43-50. Cooked product juiciness scores remained relatively 14. Moore, S. L., D. M. Theno, C. R. Anderson, and G. R. Schmidt. constant and at a desirable level (compared with previous 1976. Effect of salt, phosphate and some nonmeat proteins on steak results, same laboratory) during both refrigerated binding strength and cook yield on a beef roll. J. Food Sci. 41:424-426. and frozen storage (Table 2). General acceptability scores 15. Ockerman, H. W. 1975. Chemistry of meat tissue. Dept. of Animal decreased (P < 0.01) during both types of storage (Table Science. The Ohio State University and The Ohio Agricultural 2). Research and Development Center. This restructured product is very acceptable in the 16. Ockerman, H. W. 1976. Quality control of post-mortem muscle fresh state. However, rapid deterioration occurs in tissue. The Dept. of Animal Science. The Ohio State University and The Ohio Agricultural Research and Development Center. uncooked product color and odor and the stored product Downloaded from http://meridian.allenpress.com/jfp/article-pdf/42/2/126/1649013/0362-028x-42_2_126.pdf by guest on 28 September 2021 17. Ockerman, H. W., and C. S. Organisciak. 1978. Diffusion of is also rated lower with longer storage time when cooked curing brine in tumbled and non-tumbled porcine tissue. J. Food product odor, flavor, and general acceptability are Prot. 41:178-181. compared. Fat oxidation, based on TBA values, is an 18. Ockerman, H. W., and C. W. Organisciak. 1978. The influence of important factor in this deterioration. If the product continuous vs. intermittent tumbling on brine (salt, sugar and nitrite) diffusion in porcine tissue. J. Food Prot. 41: cannot be used quickly it appears that phosphates or 19. Ockerman, H. W., R. F. Plimpton, Jr., V. R. Cahill, and N. A. antioxidants will be necessary for an acceptable shelf life. Parrett. 1978. Influence of short term tumbling, salt and phosphate on cured canned pork. J. Food Sci. 43:878-881. 20. Pepper, F. H., and G. R. Schmidt. 1975. Effect of blending time, REFERENCES salt, phosphate and hot-boned beef on binding strength and cooking yield of beef rolls. J. Food. Sci. 40:227-230. 1. AOAC. 1955. Official methods of analysis. 8th ed. Association of 21. Randall, C. J., and F. Larmond. 1977. Effect of method of Otlicial Agricultural Chemists, Washington, D.C. comminution (flake-cutting and grinding) on the acceptability and 2.APHA. 1960. Standard methods for the examination of dairy quality of patties. J. Food Sci. 42:728-730. products. American Public Health Association, New York. 22. Russo, J. R. 1976. Steak ... at a 40o/osavings. Food Eng. 48:67-69. 3. Bertelsen. K. 1975. Spun steak's changeover in portion control. 23. Schmidt, G. R. 1977. Why massage or tumble? Meat Industry, Nov. Meat Proc. J. 24:28-34. p 40-43. 4. Cross, H. R., and M. S. Stanfield. 1976. Consumer evaluation of 24.Schwartz, W. C., and R. W. Mandigo. 1976. Effect of salt and restructured . J. Food Sci. 41:1257-58. sodium tripolyphosphate and storage on restructured pork. J. Food 5. Farrington, A. E. 1975. Flaked, formed and frozen lamb products. Sci. 41:1266-1269. Proc. 28th Ann. Reciprocal Meat Conf. Am. Meat Sci. Assoc., 25. Siegel, D. G., D. M. Theno and G. R. Schmidt. 1978. Meat 140-152. massaging: The effect of salt, phosphate and massaging on the 6. Ford. A. L., P. N. Jones, J. J. Macfarlane, G. R. Schmidt, and R. H. presence of specific skeletal muscle proteins in the exudate of a Turner. 1978. Binding of meat pieces: Objective and subjective sectioned and formed ham. J. Food Sci. 327:330. assessment of restructured steakettes containing added myosin 26. Siegel, D. G., D. M. Theno, and G. R. Schmidt. 1976. Protein and/or sarcoplasmia proteins. J. Food Sci. 43:815-819. extraction during ham massaging. J. An. Sci. 42:1347-1347. 7. Gokalp, H. Y. 1977. Lipid oxidation and alteration of carbonyls 27. Siegel, D. G., D. M. Theno, G. R. Schmidt, and H. W. Norton. and their relationship with the organoleptic evaluation of frozen 1978. Meat massaging: The effects of salt, phosphate and stored beef patties. Ph.D. dissertation. The Ohio State University. massaging on cooking loss, binding strength and exudate 8. Gokalp, H. Y., H. W. Ockerman, R. F. Plimpton, N. A. Parrett, composition in sectioned and formed ham. 1978. J. Food Sci. and V. R. Cahill. 1978. Effect of different packaging methods on 43:331-333. objective quality characteristics of frozen and stored cow beef. J. 28. Theno, D. M., D. G. Siegel, and G. R. Schmidt. 1978. Meat Food Sci. 43:297-300. massaging: Effects of salt and phosphate on the microstructure of 9. Harvey, W. R. 1960. Least squares analysis of data with unequal binding junctions in sectioned and formed hams. J. Food Sci. subclass frequencies. USDA, Agricultural Research Service. ARS 43:493-498. 20-8. 29. Theno, D. M., D. G. Siegel, and G. R. Schmidt. 1977. Meat 10. Krause, R.J., H. W. Ockerman, B. Krol, P. C. Moerman, and R. F. massaging techniques. Proceedings of the Meat Industry Research Plimpton, Jr. 1978. Influence of tumbling, tumbling time, trim, and Conference. p 53-68. sodium tripolyphosphate on quality and yield of cured hams. J. 30. Theno, D. M., D. G. Siegel, and G. R. Schmidt. 1976. Food Sci. 43:853-855. Microstructure of sectioned and formed ham. J. An. Sci. 11. Macfarlane, J. J.. G. R. Schmidt, and R. H. Turner. 1977. Binding 42:1347-1348. of meat pieces: A comparison of myosin, actomyosin and 31. Viskase, Ltd. 1971. Growing interest in meat tumbling. Food sarcoplasmic proteins as binding agents. J. Food Sci. 42:1603-1605. Manufacturing 46:35-36.