The Effects of Marination and Cooking Regimes on the Waterbinding Properties and Tenderness of Beef and Bison Top Round Roasts
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT: The combined effect of marination and different cooking regimes on the cooking yield and palat‐ability of bison and beef top round roasts was investigated. Semimembranosus (SM) muscles from beef and bison top rounds were injected with a marinade to achieve 20% extension by weight and 0.5% sodium chloride and 0.3% sodium tripolyphosphate levels and then subdivided into 4 roasts and cooked by following 4 cooking regimes: cooking at a constant temperature of 75°C (control; C); similar to the control treatment except that roasts were held at an internal temperature of 55°C for 45 min (Hold45) or 90 min (Hold90) prior to final cooking at 75°C; initial cooking at 55°C with a 5°C increase in oven temperature every hour (Step‐up) until the 71°C internal temperature was achieved. Cooking yield, expressible moisture, purge, and shear force of processed roasts were determined. Marination by injection improved the yield and tenderness of beef and bison SM roasts. The cooking yield for injected samples (78%) was significantly (P < 0.05) higher compared with noninjected controls (68%). Injected SM roasts from bison had lower cooking losses than those from beef, whereas control samples from these 2 species did not differ in their cooking yields. Injected beef SM was more tender than bison SM; however, marination significantly reduced the shear force values of SM roasts for both species (i.e., shear force values of 82 N in control samples was reduced to 63 N in injected ones). The cooking regimes, Hold45, Hold90, and Step‐up (which allowed a longer time at 55 to 60°C), gave products with lower ( P < 0.05) shear force values than those of the controls. Based on the cooking yield and time involved, the Hold 45 treatment performed the best.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".