s i

N° 10

Yème REUNION DES INSTITUTS DS RECHERCHES SUR LES VIANDES

PARIS - du 7 au 12 Septembre 1959 -

The proximate composition of veal

by A. McM. TaylorThe British Pood Manufacturing Industries Research Association, Randalls Road, Leatherhead, Surrey.

The problem of the analysis of meat products for meat content is complicated by the inherent variability of the raw material and hampered by the scarcity of published data for the composition of meat. There has been considerable recent interest in the validity of the conversion factors used in the Stubbs and More method of analysis (1) and in this connection new data for the composition of pork have been made available (2, 3)* The literature is, however, practically devoid of analytical data for veal and the present work was carried out to provide some information on this point.

Materials and Methods

Analyses were carried out on five sides of fresh veal and five of imported frozen veal. All the sides were from animals of the type normally used in Great Britain for manufacturing purposes and commonly referred to as 'bobby1 veal. The fresh veal sides were purchased in Smithfield market and, after boning out, were cut into five sections as shown in Pig. 1. After weighing, each section was completely minced with a power mincer, the entire section being passed twice through a inch plate and twice through a 3/16 inch. The minced meat was •well mixed and duplicate samples were drawn into glass jars. The jars were closed with metal lids having rubber sealing rings and held at -20° C until required. Each sample was separately analysed, the samples being again minced through a small hand mincer (3/l6 inch plate) and mixed in a mortar immediately before use.

The frozen sides were obtained from a carton of frozen veal of New-Zealand origin. The pack comprised five boneless sides, folded and compressed to form a rectangular block and enclosed in a polythene bag and a cardboard outer container. It was received in the frozen state ; after thawing the sides were separated, cut, minced and sampled in the same manner as the fresh sides. During the thawing a quantity of "drip” was collected ;

••./.••

5 3- 2 -

the total volume of "drip" was measured although the manner of packing made it impossible to separate the "drip" from the individual sides. The "drip" was not analysed, but a sample of "drip" for analysis was subsequently obtained from a further identical pack.

The samples were analysed for moisture, fat, protein and ash content. The methods used were those recommended by the Society of Public Analysts and Other Analytical Chemists (4), except that the extraction of the fat from the residue after drying on sand was carried out in a continuous drop- through extractor.

Analytical Results

Table I shows the overall weights and general breakdown of the sides into the specified cuts. The difference in weight on boning-out of the fresh sides includes the kidney and small amounts of cartilagenous tissue which were also removed.

Tables II and III give the analytical figures for the fresh and frozen sides. The figures have been calculated to two decimal

n vc conventional manner and the second decimal figure has been used in subsequent averaging. Individual figures for protein, depending on a titration difference of approximately 10 ml., cannot be regarded as signi­ficant beyond the first decimal figure. In addition to the analytical results these Tables show the calculated nitrogen content of the fat-free portion, which is the factor on which the Stubbs and More calculation is based, and the Feder liumber, calculated as the ratio

Percent water

Systematic variations in fat content between individual sides are evident on inspection ; these are generally consistently maintained over the five portions examined. Variations between the portions are less consistent. In the fresh sides, the highest fat content is always found in the belly portion, but this is not maintained in the frozen sides and may well arise from differences in butchering. The neck portion is frequently, but not always, lowest in fat. 7

From the analytical point of view interest centres on the nitro­gen content and Feder number of the samples. On plotting, the results for these characters showed the expected inverse linear relationship (cf.Jensen, 3), the plots for the fresh and frozen sidesbeeuig parallel and practically superposable. In examining the results attention was therefore concentrated on the nitrogen content since the Feder number, as a complex variable, is less amenable to numerical calculation. The results for the ni­trogen content of the fat-free meat were first tested by the standard analysis of variance, using as residual the variance between the analytical duplicates. On this basis both fresh and frozen sides showed highly significant diffe­rences both between different sides and between different cuts : in addition the frozen sides showed a significant interaction, although the fresh sides did not. The variations recorded are thus genuine and are not explicable in

terms of analytical differences. The analytical duplicates were averaged for all subsequent calculations•

Variations between Sides

From the weights and compositions of the individual portions tho overall compositions of the ten sides examined have been calculated and hence the mean nitrogen contents of these sides have been obtained. The results of these calculations are given in Table IV.

The variations in fat content already noted are clearly brought out, particularly in the frozen sides. The overall average figures quoted in this Table are weighted averages and take into account the relative weights of the individual sides. For statistical purposes the figures in the last column were used to calculate arithmetical mean and standard deviation values for the nitrogen content of fat-free fresh and frozen veal :

Nitrogen content offat-free meat Standard deviation

( i° )

For fresh sides 3.419 0.170For frozen sides 3.360 0.045

The standard deviation for the fresh sides is appreciably greater than for the frozen sides and reflects the greater spread of the nitrogen figures. This may be due to the greater variations in source and handling in the market-purchased fresh veal sides, but alternatively a certain degree of equilibration between the frozen sides may have taken place during the holding period. The difference between the mean values for the fresh and frozen sides° is not significant in relation to the standard deviations observed.

The effect of Drip

As already stated, a considerable quantity of drip was collected from the frozen sides during thawing. Although the manner of packing preven­ted the separate collection of the drip from the individual sides, the effect of including the drip on the overall composition of the frozen sides can be calculated.

Moisture(*)

Fat Protein(*)

Ash(0

Nitrogen in faiv- free meat {$ )

Overall average composition of frozen veal sides including drip. 77.59 1.76 19.58 1.07 3.189

The effect is quite appreciable and, in view of the fact that in manufacturing practice frozen veal is frequently utilised directly without thawing out. it is clear that from the manufacturing point of view the fi­gures including drip may well be the significant ones, although it seems

- 4 -6 t

possible that part at least of the separated liquid may have come from water added for glazing purposes. In this connection it is to be noted that the moisture contents of the frozen sides after separation of the drip are still generally higher than those of the fresh sides. The inclusion of the drip increases the difference between the fresh and frozen sides on an average ba­sis ; application of the t-test, assuming that the same standard deviation figures are applicable, indicates that the increased difference is marginally significant (P = 3.2 7°) .

Variations between Sections

Variations between sections of the same side are likely to be of less technical significance than in the case of pork since, as far as is known, it is not customary to segregate cuts of veal for specific pu2> poses as is commonly done for pork. Nevertheless any systematic variation would be of general interest. Table V shows the arithmetic mean and standard deviation values for the separate sections of both the fresh and frozen sides (the latter being for the sides as analysed, i. e. after separation of drip).

Again the standard deviation figures for the fresh sides are appreciably higher than for the frozen sid^s, and lor this reason the difference between the extremes (0.17^) is not significant in the case of the fresh cuts whereas the corresponding difference for the frozen cuts, although numerically smaller (0.12g) is significant (P = 1.5 $ . Even in the fatter case, however, only these extremes are significantly different. Cer­tainly there is no suggestion of parallelism between the nitrogen distri­bution over the fresh and frozen cuts. The range of variability between the cuts is loss than that between the sides, particularly with the fresh sides.

Calculation of Feder Numbers

Prom the compositional data calculated for the various sides and cuts involved, appropriate Feder numbers can readily be obtained. These are given in Table VI, the figures for the frozen sides again referring to the material after separation of drip.

These figures again reflect the greater variability of the fresh sides as compared with the variability between cuts. It would appear that, in seeking to improve uniformity of composition from batch to batch, combination of portions of a number of different sides is desirable, parti­cularly when fresh veal is being used.

Acknowledgements

The analytical determinations on the veal samples were carried out by Mr. N. C. Mahoney. Thanks are due to the Council and Director of the British Food Manufacturing Industries Research Association for permission to present this communication.

- 5 -

References

1. Stubbs and More, Analyst, 1919, 44. 125.2. Reith, Hofsteed & Langbrake, J. Sci. Food Agr., 1955, _6 , 3 1 7 .3. Jensen, Slagterilaboratoriet, Rapport nr. 7/58, (23,2.59).4. The Analyses of Meat Products, Analyst, 1952, 7 7 , 5 4 3 .

Summary

Analyses of ten sides of veal, each divided into five sections, are presented. The results showed greater variability in fresh than in frozen sides, the variability between sides being greater than between cuts.

Sommnire

On présente les analyses de dix demi-carcasses de veau, dont chacune était coupée en cinq parties. Les résultats montrent une variation plus grande entre les demi-fraîches que les demi-congelées et la variation entre les demies était supérieure à celle entre les morceaux.

Zusammenfassung

Analysen von zehn Seiten von Kalbfleisch, jeden in fünf Portionen geteilt, sind hier gezeigt. Die Resultate zeigen grössere Unterschieden im rohen als im gefrorenen Seiten. Die Unterschieden sind grösser zwischen einzelne Seiten als zwischen Portionen.

^ 3

- 6 -

Table 1. Weights of veal sides and proportions of specifiedsections

Side numberFresh sides Frozen sides

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Weight of side as purchased (kg). 10.43 9.98 5.44 7.71 8.39 — , ,

mm

Weight of bone-loss side asanalysed (kg). 6.50 6.49 3.39 4.48 5.49 5.14 4.83 6.32 5.72 3.50Section of side Weight of section - per cent of boneless side weight

Wool: 12.0 13.3 12.8 12.8 12.2 7.7 11.4 7.6 15.1 9.5Forequarter 14.8 10.3 16.3 17.9 17.6 8.5 12.6 21.6 15.1 13.3Back 20.0 31.8 20.4 23.6 27.0 27.4 23.1 22.8 13.8 31.6Belly 15.0 19.8 15.5 22.5 14.3 14.2 11.1 7.7 14.1 13.5Hindquarter 38.2 24.8 35.0 23.2 28.9 42.2 41.8 40.3 41.9 32.1

Volume of "drip" <;070 m!• •(from 5 sides)

Analysis of "drip" gm. per100 ml

TOtal solids 8 .27Ash 1 ,10Protein (N x: 6.25) 6 ,86

- 7 -ê>Y

Table II. Analyses of fresh veal sides

Section of side

Sidenumber

Moisture1o

Fat*

Ash*

Protein (N x 6.25)

*

Nitrogen in fat-freemeat ($)

Federnumber

Neck 1 76.05 2.29 1.09 20.55 3.37 3.7076.08 . 2.26 1 .00 20.81 3.41 3.68

2 75.71 2.43 1.09 20.39 3.34 3.6575.78 2.43 1.05 20.41 3.35 3.65

3 75.26 2.73 1.15 21.12 3.47 3.6175.19 2.50 1.09 21 .09 3.46 3.54

4 77.76 1.62 1 .07 19.96 3.25 3.9878.45 1 .71 1.17 19.05 3.10 4.20

5 74.71 1.95 1.24 21.93 3.58 3.3874.73 1.96 1.25 21.99 3.59 3.39

Forequarter 1 76.03 2.51 1.05 20.60 3.38 3.7376.05 2.08 1.11 20.96 3.43 3.66

2 75.50 2.66 1.14 20.16 3.31 3.6575.50 2.90 1.00 20.98 3.46 3.67

3 75.39 2.64 1.06 21 .13 3.47 3.6175.06 2.90 1 .08 21.12 3.48 3.58

4 77.69 1.89 0.84 19.43 3.10 3.9777.39 1.83 0.87 19.95 3.25 3.895 74.15 1 .96 1.15 22.52 3.68 3.2674.32 1.96 1.15 22.49 3.67 3.29

Back 1 76.93 1 .66 1.16 20.74 3.37 3.8076.88 1.38 1.11 20.96 3.40 3.732 75.26 2.82 1.47 20.71 3.41 3.68

'4-93 3.13 1.52 19.98 3.30 3.68

3 75.32 2.72 1.11 21.19 3.49 3.6175.09 2.89 0.99 21.13 3.48 3.57

4 77.76 2.26 1.13 19.08 3.12 4.1377.20 2.78 1.06 18.73 3.08 4.07

5 73.75 2.53 1.06 22.61 3.71 3.2673.48 2.90 1.04 22.07 3.64 3.25

Table II. (Contd.)

Section of side

Sidenumber

Moisture%

Fatif

Ash%

Protein (N x 6.25) %

Nitrogen in fat-free meat, fo

Federnumber

Belly 1 74.00 3.65 1 . 2 1 2 1 .34 3.54 3.5073.87 3.54 1 . 2 2 21.62 3.59 3.46

2 73.45 4.75 1 .26 2 0 . 8 8 3,51 3.5873.26 5.25 1 .23 20.73 3.50 3.62

3 73.92 3.08 1 .25 22.18 3.66 3.4073.60 3.25 1 . 1 0 21,75 3.60 3.34

4 76.93 2.72 1 . 1 0 19.23 3.16 4.007 7 . 0 2 2.76 1 .08 19.53 3 . 2 1 4.02

5 7 2 . 2 1 2.98 1.40 23.84 3.93 3.0972.36 2.95 1 . 2 0 23.27 3.84 3.03

Hindquar-ter 1 76.14 2.60 1.24 20.27 3.33 3.80

76 49 2 . 1 0 1 . 2 0 20.34 3.33 3.792 75.46 2.92 1.27 20.67 3.41 3.7175.70 3.12 1 .17 19.84 3.28 3.78

3 75.73 2.25 1 .38 2 1 .06 3.45 3.6775.43 2 . 4 6 1.33 2 1 . 1 0 3.46 3,63

4 77.89 1.74 1 . 1 1 19.41 3.16 4.0477 .S3 1.76 1.15 19.34 3.15 4.07

5 74.53 2 . 1 0 1.23 22.18 3.63 3.3774.32 1.99 1 . 2 1 22.24

--- --------3.63 3.31

Table III. Analyses of frozen veal sides

Section of sido

Sidenumber

Moisture(*)

Fat( 0

Ash( 0

Protein (N X 6.25) 1o

Nitrogen in fat-free meat

( Ä

Federnumber

Heck 6 7 6 . 8 6 1.63 1.06 2 0 . 6 6 3.36 3.7677.07 1 . 1 2 1 .08 2 0 . 6 3 3.34 3.72

7 77.39 0.74 0.91 21.39 3.45 3.6977.16 0.76 1.04 21.14 3.41 3.67

8 77.13 1.50 1 . 0 1 20.46 3.32 3.7976.25 1.55 1 . 1 0 2 0 . 8 8 3.39 3.61

9 77.93 1 . 1 2 1.19 20.09 3.25 3.9477.80 1.45 1.07 19.99 3.25 3.95

1 0 75.50 4.23 0.95 19.03 3.18 3.9175.37 4.17 1 . 0 0 19.11 3.19 3.87

Forequarter 6 7 6 . 6 8 2.06 0.97 20.72 3.39 3.7876.35 2.35 0.94 20,64 3.38 3.75

7 77.13 0.79 1.28 20.93 3.38 3.7177.18 0.81 1.15 20.89 3.37 3.70

8 7 6 . 1 6 2 . 6 8 1.05 20.24 3.33 3.7976.78 2.51 0 . 9 8 19.84 3.26 3.89

9 77.13 0 . 8 8 1 . 1 2 2 1 . 0 2 3.39 3.7076.91 0.79 1 . 1 2 20.84 3.36 3.63

1 0 75.31 4.50 0.99 19.09 3.20 3.9275.25 4.43 0.93 19.25 3.22 3.88

Back 6 76.45 1 .79 1 . 0 2 20.92 3.41 3.6975.97 2.25 1 . 0 2 20.61 3.38 3.66

7 76.85 0.75 1 . 0 2 2 1 . 0 4 3.39 3.6076.96 0.93 1 .07 20.83 3.36 3 . 6 6

8 75.80 1.72 1 . 1 0 21.59 3.51 3.5575.66 1.87 1 .04 21.40 3.49 3.53

9 77.13 0.96 1.07 2 1 .03 3.40 3.7076.91 0.97 1 . 0 2 20.83 3.37 3.65

1 0 73.47 5.05 1.04 20.33 3.43 3.6073.70 5.32 1 .07 20.31 3.43 3.70

Table III. (Contd.)

Section of side

Sidenumber

Moisture%

Pat*

Ash*

Protein (N x 6.25) J6

Nitrogen in fat-free meat

(*)

Pedernumber

Belly 6 76.72 2.09 0.92 20.39 3.33 3.787 6 . 8 6 2.07 1 . 0 2 20.34 3.33 3.83

7 77.54 1.25 1 .06 20.04 3.25 3.8577.66 1 . 1 2 1 . 0 0 20.37 3.30 3.84

8 75.88 2.38 1.03 20.65 3.38 3.6675.80 2.46 0.97 20.70 3.40 3.65

9 76.98 2.43 1 . 0 0 19.65 3.22 3.937 6 . 8 6 2.27 1 . 1 2 19.36 3.17 3.89

1 0 75.29 3.73 0.99 1 9 . 6 6 3.27 3.7775.00 3.92 0.94 19.77 3.29 3.73

Hindquar-ter 6 76.42 1.76 1.07 20.99 3.42 3.68

76.37 1.76 1 . 1 1 20.95 3.41 3 . 6 8

7 76.68 0.79 1.04 21.14 3.41 3.5776.42 0.93 1.07 2 1 . 2 1 3.43 3.54

8 75.88 1.84 1 . 1 2 20.98 3.42 3.5976.05 1.75 1 .07 2 1 . 0 3 3.42 3.60

9 77.27 1.28 1.15 20.08 3.26 3.8177.32 1.35 1 . 1 0 2 0 . 2 1 3.28 3.82

1 0 75.25 3 . 0 6 1.18 20.26 3.34 3.6775.58 2.93 1 . 0 2 20.14 3.32 3.69

0 %

Table IV» Calculated overall compositions of veal sides

Moisture Fat Protein Ash Nitrogen in fat-$ 1° % % free meat, %

Fresh sides 1 75.83 2.35 2 0 . 6 6 1.16 3.38g2 74.99 3.29 20.44 1.28 3.382

3 74.95 2.67 2 1 . 2 0 1 .18 3 . 4 8 5

4 77.47 2 . 1 6 19.31 1 .06 3.15a5 74.00 2.33 22.49 1 .18 3 .6 8 4

Overall average ofall fresh sides 75.42 2.59 20.81 1 .18

| 3 »418

Frozen sides 6 76.33 1 . 8 8 20.75 1.04 3.384

7 77.04 0.87 2 1 . 0 2 1.07 3.393

8 76.08 2 . 0 0 2 0 . 8 6 1.06 3.4069 77.28 1.34 20.27 1 . 1 1 3.28?

1 0 74.89 4 . 1 2 19.95 1.04 3.32g

Overall average ofall frozen sides 76.42 1.90 20.61 1 .07 3.361

Table V . Nitrogen in fat-free, veal cuts

Section of side

Nitrogen on fat-free t)asis - per centFresh sides Frozen sides

Mean Standarddeviation

Mean Standarddeviation

Neck 3.392 0.135 ^ 3.314 0.086Forequarter 3.42g 0.161 3.32? 0.067Back 3.4°i 0.186 3 *416 0.046Belly 3.554 0.224 3.294 0.064Hindquarter 3.381 0.156 3.37, 0.062

- 12 -

Table VT. Galeulated Feder numbers of veal cuts and sides

Section Feder numberof side Fresh sides Frozen sides

Neck 3.67 3.78Forequarter 3.61 3.76Back 3.64 3.63Belly 3.50 3.82Hindquarter 3.67 3.68

Side number 1 3.67 Side number 6 3.68- 2 3.67 7 3.673 3.54 8 3.654 4 . 0 1 9 3.815 3.29 1 0 3.75

Average over Average overall sides 3.62 all sides 3.71