1

INTRODUCTION

Meat consists of edible muscle, connective tissue and associated fats. It is an

important source of high quality protein comprising essential amino acids that can be

used to supplement proteins from plant sources, which are deficient in essential

amino acids such as lysine, tryptophan, methionine and threonine (Bender, 1992

cited by Salo, 2010).

Tenderizing beef can sometimes make an inexpensive piece of beef more

palatable, but too often commercial beef tenderizers are high in sodium. Natural meat

tenderizers can flavor your meat while using enzymes to break down the meat

proteins, making the meat less tough. Sometimes natural meat tenderizers are used

as ingredients in commercially available meat marinades. You can easily make your

own tenderizer or marinade by combining some fruit juices that act as natural

tenderizers (Anonymous, 2011a).

Marinating is the process of soaking foods in a seasoned, often acidic, liquid

before cooking. The origins of the word allude to use of brine (aqua marina) in the

pickling process, which led to technique of adding flavor by immersion liquid. The

liquid in question, the marinade can be acidic with ingredients such as vinegar, lemon

juice, wine or enzymatic (made with ingredients such as pineapple or papaya). Along

with these liquids, a marinade often contains oils, herbs, and spices to further flavor

the food items (Anonymous, 2011b).

Pineapple fruit contain bromelin. Bromelin – a protease obtained especially

from the pineapple. The enzyme like bromelin is known as excellent tenderizer agent

(Anonymous, 2013).

Calamansi juice is primarily used for making acid beverages. It is often

incorporated like lime or lemon juice to make gelatin salads and custard pie.
 2

Calamansi juice is also used as a meat tenderizer and adds flavor to the dishes

(Anonymous, 2007 as cited by Ellevara, 2014).

Objectives of the Study

The general objective of the study is to determine the effect of calamansi,

pineapple puree and their combination on the meat quality of beef when oven

roasted.

Specifically, it aimed to:

1. Determine the aroma, texture, flavor, juiciness, tenderness and over-all

acceptability of beef.

Time and Place of the Study

This study was conducted at Datuin’s Residence, Purok-16, Musuan,

Maramag, Bukidnon on February 2016.

 3

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

Meat Quality

Meat quality refers to the amount of marbling, texture of gain of the meat, the

firmness and color of the lean, the firmness and color of the fat, and the character of

the bone. Marbling receives the most emphasis for several reasons (Marchello and

Dryden, 2014). Meat is animal flesh that is used as food. Most often, this means the

skeletal muscle and associated fat and other tissues, but may also describe other

tissues such as organ and offal (Lawrie, 2006).

Red meat, such as beef, pork, and lamb, contains many essential nutrients

necessary for healthy growth and development in children. Nutrient in red meat

include iron, zinc, vitamin B12, and protein. Most meats contain a full complement of

the amino acids required for the human diet. Fruits and vegetables, by contrast,

sometimes lack several essential amino acids contained in meat. It is for this reason

that people who abstain from eating all meat need to plan their diet more carefully

include vegetarian sources of all the necessary amino acids (Anonymous, 2011c).

Meat Tenderizers

Meat tenderizers are proteolytic enzymes or proteases, enzymes specialized

in breaking the peptide bonds between amino acids found in complex proteins. Meat

is held together by complex protein called collagen, and aside from mechanical

tenderization and cooking, enzymes are the only other available meat tenderizers.

Meat is often tenderized before cooking, to make it less tough and more suitable for

consumption (Anonymous, 2011d).

 4

Meat tenderizers often come in a powdered form that can be sprinkled directly

on the meat. Meat tenderizers dissolve some of the connections within the meat at

room temperature. If meant tenderizers are allowed to act for too long, special texture

of the meat will lose (Anonymous, 2011d).

Tenderness

Beef palatability or taste and help drive consumer enjoyment and demand for

beef. To meet evolving consumer desires, the industry must products that are

consistently tender and flavorful. Just one bad eating experience can leave a lasting

impression on a consumer (Wasser, 2012).

The tenderizing occurs both during the marinating process, and also during

the cooking where heat is applied to the marinated meat. The tenderizing enzymes

break down up collagen holding beef’s muscle strands together and loosen or relax

the protein molecules, making beef the teri beef fall apart tender (Oahu, 2010).

One biological factor that affects beef tenderness in initial tenderness of beef

immediately post-harvest and the subsequent improvement of tenderness with

refrigerated storage, termed beef aging. The action of calpains have been shown to

be the same events that occurs in post-harvest muscle or during meat aging and

therefore, it is universally thought that calpains plays a major role improving beef

tenderness during aging (Miller et al, 2011).

While breed type also affects beef tenderness, it is widely recognized that the

magnitude of inter-animal variation in tenderness within a breed exceeds the

differences in tenderness provide opportunities to select for improved tenderness

within breed or biotype (Miller et al, 2011).

 5

Calamansi

Calamansi, a native citrus plant cultivate throughout the Philippines, is an

important crop and an outstanding ornamental plant. The tree, which is often trained

bonsai, blooms all year-round, thus filling the air with aroma of citrus blossom. Other

common names of calamansi in the Philippines are: kalamondin, kalamunding,

kalamansi, limosito and agidulce (Anonymous, 2007).

It is said that calamansi is an acidic citrus, a group that includes lemons and

limes. This is because the flesh is orange, juicy and acidic and with a fine-orange

flavor. One bite of this can pucker your mouth. Calamansi fruit, when ripe, is vey sour

when first taste but subsequent tasted fruits can make your mouth sweet. If the fruit

is picked too soon, calamansi is bitter (Anonymous, 2007). The calamansi

composition shown in Table 1.

 6

Table 1. Calamansi Composition

Nutrient Units Value per 100 grams

Calories from Fat 0
Calories 25
Total Fat g 0
Saturated Fat g 0
Poly Unsaturated Fat g 0
Mono Unsaturated Fat g 0
Cholesterol mg 0
Sodium mg 1
Potassium mg 124
Total Carbohydrate g 8.63
Dietary Fiber g 0.4
Sugar g 2.4
Protein g 0.38
Vitamin A 0%
Calcium 1%
Vitamin C 77%
Iron 0%
SOURCE: USDA Nutrient database
 7

Pineapple

The pineapple (Ananas comosus), named for its resemblance to the cone is a

tropical plant with edible multiple fruit consisting of coalesced berries, and the most

economically significant plant in the Bromeliaceae family. Pineapple contains

enzymes bromelain which scientist believed that it breaks down protein; assist in

digestion of protein rich food besides from being anti-inflammatory (Singh, 2003).

Pineapple fruits have reasonable levels of vitamin C (15-55 mg/100g of flesh),

and a very high antioxidant capacity: 1 – 4 times greater than pure vitamin E. Fruits

contains some B6, thiamine and folate. They are high in manganese, and have

reasonable levels of fiber. Pineapples produce bromelin mix of several protease

enzymes. Commercially this is used as a meat tenderizer, in manufacturing pre-

cooked cereals and certain cosmetics (Lyle, 2006). The pineapple composition

shown in Table 2.
 8

Table 2. Pineapple Composition

Nutrient Units Value per 100 grams

Proximates
Water g 86.00
Protein g 0.54
Total lipid (fat) g 0.12
Ash g 0.22
Carbohydrate, by difference g 13.12
Fiber, total dietary g 1.4
Sugar, total g 9.85
Sucrose g 9.85
Glucose (dextrose) g 5.99
Fructose g 1.73
Vitamins
Vitamin C, total ascorbic acid mg 47.8
Vitamin A, IU IU 58
Vitamin A, RAE mcg_RAE 3
Other
Carotene, beta mcg 35
SOURCE: USDA Nutrient database
 9

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Facilities and Equipment

The following facilities and equipment that were used in the study: The fresh

beef, fresh calamansi, fresh pineapple, knives, chopping board, juicer, beaker,

graduated cylinder, fork, weighing scale, dripping tray, aluminum foil, oven, coded

plate, test panel table, and score sheets.

Experimental Design and Treatments

A total of three kilograms of beef from a thigh part of a three to four year old

cow was used in this study. Every replication in each treatment will consist of 250

grams meat. All treatments were arranged following a Completely Randomize Design

with the same marinating time of six hours.

Below are the Experimental Treatments:

Treatment 1 = 250 grams beef + 6 hours soaking in 250ml water (control)

Treatment 2 = 250 grams beef + 6 hours soaking in 250ml calamansi puree

Treatment 3 = 250 grams beef + 6 hours soaking in 250ml pineapple puree

Treatment 4 = 250 grams beef + 6 hours soaking in 125ml calamansi + 125ml

pineapple puree
 10

Preparation and Application of Purees

The calamansi was sliced into two. Then squeezing and straining were done

to collect the juice. The pineapple fruit to be used was just ripe. It was peeled and

chopped into smaller parts. The chopped pineapple fruit were put to the juice

extractor. Then the juice was put into a clean container respectively with cover.

The 250 grams beef was cut into 5 cubes of approximate 50 grams each and

were soaked with the purees, respectively. The samples were pierced first with fork

to facilitate penetration and absorption of the purees.

Preparation of Meat Samples

The meat sample of beef that was cut into 5 cubes of approximate 50 grams

each and were washed thoroughly and dripped uniformly. These were place in a non-

reactive container and added with calamansi and pineapple puree according to the

different treatment, and were soaked for six hours. After soaking the meat was

placed in a tray for few seconds to drip and secure for roasting. Each piece was

wrapped with aluminum foils with code and was place in the pre-heated oven.

Cooking of Samples

The marinated samples were arrange in individual pans and arranged in an

oven tray for roasting at the temperature of 160⁰C for about to 45 minutes. The

roasted samples were set aside to be warm enough after cooking for the evaluation.
 11

Sensory Evaluation

The oven roasted beef was arranged in an aluminum foil plate warm enough

for the evaluation of the aroma, texture, juiciness, tenderness, and over-all

acceptability. Five panelists (three males and two females) were evaluated the

roasted samples using the five rating scales in score sheets. In addition the selected

panelists are non-smokers and non-alcoholic drinkers. The scale and score for the

evaluation of the roasted samples are the following:

Aroma

Sliced samples of the oven roasted beef were placed in the plates with code

for the evaluation of the odor.

Numerical Rating Description

4. 51 – 5.00 Extremely desirable beef aroma
3. 51 – 4.50 Moderately desirable beef aroma
2. 51 – 3.50 Normal beef aroma
1.51 – 2.50 Slightly undesirable beef aroma
0.50 – 1.50 Extremely undesirable beef aroma

Texture

Sliced samples of the oven roasted beef were placed in the plates with code

for the evaluation of the texture.

Numerical Rating Description

4.51 – 5.00 Usually loose
3.51 – 4.50 Loose
2.51 – 3.50 Rigid
1.51 – 2.50 Moderately rigid
0.50 – 1.50 Extremely rigid

Flavor
 12

Sliced samples of the oven roasted beef were placed with code for evaluation

for the evaluation of the flavor.

Numerical Rating Description

4.51 – 5.00 Extremely desirable beef flavor
3.51 – 4.50 Moderately desirable beef flavor
2.51 – 3.50 Normal beef flavor
1.51 – 2.50 Slightly undesirable beef flavor
0.50 – 1.50 Extremely undesirable beef flavor

Juiciness

Sliced samples of the oven roasted beef were placed with code for evaluation

for the evaluation of the juiciness.

Numerical Rating Description

4.51 – 5.00 Extremely juicy
3.51 – 4.50 Moderately juicy
2.51 – 3.50 Just juicy
1.51 – 2.50 Moderately not juicy
0.50 – 1.50 Extremely not juicy
 13

Tenderness

The samples of the oven roasted beef were placed in the plate with code to

determine the tenderness of the meat. The lesser the number of chews, the more

tender the meat.

Numerical Rating Description Number of Chews

4.51 – 5.00 Very Tender 1 – 5 chews
3.51 – 4.50 Tender 6 – 10 chews
2.51 – 3.50 Just Tender 11 – 15 chews
1.51 – 2.50 Tough 17 – 20 chews
0.50 – 1.50 Very Tough 21 – 25 chews

Over-all Acceptability

The rating for the over-all acceptability of the roasted beef was based on the

rating for aroma, texture, flavor, juiciness and tenderness. The average numerical

values were compared using the following descriptive ratings.

Numerical Rating Description

4.51 – 5.00 Very Acceptable
3.51 – 4.50 Moderately Acceptable
2.51 – 3.50 Just Acceptable
1.51 – 2.50 Moderately not Acceptable
0.50 – 1.50 Extremely not Acceptable
 14

Data Gathered

The data gathered were the following: aroma, texture, flavor, juiciness,

tenderness, and over-all acceptability of beef using the five hedonic scales previously

mentioned.

Statistical Analysis

.
The data collected were tabulated and analyzed using the Analysis of

Variance (ANOVA) in Completely Randomize Design (CRD). The Duncan’s Multiple

Range Test (DMRT) was used to compare means on the parameters showing

significant differences.
 15

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Aroma of Roasted Beef

Table 3 presents the aroma of marinated samples. Treatment 4 with 4.04,

followed by Treatment 2 with 3.96, Treatment 1 with 3.89 and Treatment 3 with 3.80.

The result showed no significant difference among the treatment means. All the

treatment means descriptively rated as “Moderately Desirable Beef Aroma”.

Statistically, all treatments were having comparable beef aroma.

An aroma compound with its distinct odor note can be defined as its flavor

dilution factor indicating that at the lowest concentration at which the compound still

can be detected by the sense of smell (Hoa Van Ba et. al, 2014).

Table 3. Numerical and descriptive ratings of aroma roasted beef marinated with
calamansi (Citrofortunella microcarpa), pineapple (Ananas comosus)
puree and their combination

OBSERVATION

TREATMENT MEANns DR
1 2 3

1 3.90 3.88 3.89 3.89 MDBA

2 4.20 4.04 3.64 3.96 MDBA

3 3.72 3.98 3.70 3.80 MDBA

4 4.00 4.42 3.70 4.04 MDBA

C.V. = 6.23%
ns = not significant
DR = Descriptive Rating
MDBA = Moderately Desirable Beef Aroma
 16

Texture of Roasted Beef

The texture of roasted beef showed a significant difference among treatment

means under calamansi, pineapple puree and their combination. Table 4 shows that

Treatment 4, Treatment 3 and Treatment 2 had a highest mean score of 3.86, 3.54

and 3.51 respectively with a descriptive rating of “Loose”. While the Treatment 1 fall

under the descriptive rating of “Rigid” with the treatment means of 3.13. Results

revealed a significant improvement of texture on beef marinated with calamansi,

pineapple, and their combination compared to the control.

The texture of the meat is usually associated with the hardness and structure

of the meat. It is highly affected by the following factors such as marbling fat, rigor

mortis, connective tissue content, and water holding capacity (Suharyanto, 2011

cited by Agsaoay, 2012).

Table 4. Numerical and descriptive ratings of texture roasted beef marinated with
calamansi (Citrofortunella microcarpa), pineapple (Ananas comosus)
puree and their combination

OBSERVATION

TREATMENT * DR
MEAN
1 2 3

1 3.20 3.00 3.18 3.13b R

2 3.50 3.40 3.64 3.51ab L

3 3.86 3.40 3.36 3.54a L

4 3.59 4.10 3.90 3.86a L

C.V = 5.87%
.
* = Significant
Means with no common letters are significantly different from each other using DMRT
DR = Descriptive Rating
L = Loose
 17

R = Rigid
Flavor of Roasted Beef

Table 5 shows the flavor of marinated samples. It shows that Treatment 2

was the highest rating with 3.59, followed by Treatment 3 with 3.43, Treatment 4 with

3.42 and Treatment 1 with 3.10. Descriptively, Treatment 1 was rated as “Normal

Desirable Beef Flavor and Treatment 2, 3, and 4 were rated as “Moderately

Desirable Beef Flavor”. The result showed no significant difference among the

numerical rating.

Flavor is a critical sensory trait that influences consumer acceptance of beef.

Beef flavor, which develops when heat is implied, depends on the amounts and

proportions of precursor compounds presents. Meat composes of water, protein,

lipids, carbohydrates, minerals and vitamins. Of these, protein, lipids and

carbohydrates play primary roles in flavor development because they include several

compounds capable of developing into important flavor precursors when heated

(Brewer, 2013).
 18

Table 5. Numerical and descriptive ratings of flavor roasted beef marinated with
calamansi (Citrofortunella microcarpa), pineapple (Ananas comosus)
puree and their combination

OBSERVATION

TREATMENT MEANns DR
1 2 3

1 2.81 3.00 3.50 3.10 NDBF

2 3.74 3.52 3.52 3.59 MDBF

3 3.40 3.50 3.40 3.43 MDBF

4 3.52 3.52 3.22 3.42 MDBF

C.V. = 6.20%
ns = not significant
DR = Descriptive Rating
NBF = Normal Beef Flavor
MDBF = Moderately Desirable Beef Flavor
 19

Juiciness of Roasted Beef

Table 6 shows the juiciness of marinated samples. It shows that Treatment 4

has the highest rating with 3.88, followed by Treatment 2 with 3.69, Treatment 3 with

3.50 and Treatment 1 with 3.14. Descriptively, Treatments 1 and 3 were rated as

“Just Juicy” and Treatments 2, and 4 were rated as “Moderately Juicy”. The result

showed no significant difference among the treatment means implying that juiciness

of roasted beef was not affected by different marinating agents evaluated.

Juiciness of cooked meat come from two factors; by water retention and lipid

content of the meat. Marbling and fat around edges helps on holding water. Juiciness

can be developed by meat aging, since meat aging can increase water retention of

meat. And cooking slowly or moist heat can increase juiciness (Phileppe, 2007 cited

by Baguio, 2013)

Table 6. Numerical and descriptive ratings of juiciness roasted beef marinated with
calamansi (Citrofortunella microcarpa), pineapple (Ananas comosus)
puree and their combination
.

OBSERVATION

TREATMENT MEANns DR
1 2 3

1 3.40 3.00 3.02 3.14 JJ

2 3.60 3.70 3.76 3.69 MJ

3 3.90 3.40 3.20 3.50 JJ

4 3.50 3.94 4.20 3.88 MJ

C.V = 7.87%
.
ns = not significant
DR = Descriptive Rating
JJ = Just Juicy
MJ = Moderately Juicy
20
 21

Tenderness of Roasted Beef

Table 7 presents the tenderness of marinated samples. It shows that

Treatment 2 has the highest rating with 3.92, followed by Treatment 4 with 3.79,

Treatment 3 with 3.70 and Treatment 1 with 3.34. Descriptively, Treatment 1 was

rated as “Just Tender” and Treatment 2, 3 and 4 were rated as “Tender”. The result

showed no significant difference among the numerical rating signifying that

tenderness of roasted beef was not affected by different marinating agents.

Cooking method also affect the tenderness of meat cuts, usually moist heat

such as roasting, broiling, or frying is advisable to have a tender meat. In cooking it is

better to have a lower temperature so that meat cut becomes tendered (Mauldin,

2011).

Table 7. Numerical and descriptive ratings of tenderness roasted beef marinated

with calamansi (Citrofortunella microcarpa), pineapple (Ananas comosus)
puree and their combination

OBSERVATION

TREATMENT MEANns DR
1 2 3

1 3.40 3.20 3.41 3.34 JT

2 3.60 3.96 4.20 3.92 T

3 3.72 3.62 3.76 3.70 T

4 3.42 3.72 4.22 3.79 T

C.V. = 7.10%
ns = not significant
DR = Descriptive Rating
JT = Just Tender
T = Tender
 22

Over-all Acceptability of Beef

Table 8 presents the over-all acceptability of roasted beef. Treatment 4 got

the highest mean with 4.13, followed by Treatment 2 with 4.09, Treatment 3 with 3.89

and Treatment 1 with 3.78. The result showed no significant difference among the

numerical ratings. It simply means that over-all acceptability of roasted beef was not

affected by different marinating agents. All the treatment means descriptively rated

as “Moderately Acceptable”.

Table 8. Numerical and descriptive ratings of over-all acceptability roasted beef

marinated with calamansi (Citrofortunella microcarpa), pineapple (Ananas
comosus) puree and their combination

OBSERVATION

TREATMENT MEANns DR
1 2 3

1 3.74 3.90 3.70 3.78 MA

2 3.98 4.10 4.20 4.09 MA

3 3.90 3.88 3.89 3.89 MA

4 4.00 4.45 3.95 4.13 MA

C.V. = 3.96%
ns = not significant
DR = Descriptive Rating
MA = Moderately Acceptable
 23

SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

The study was conducted to determine the effects of calamansi

(Citrofortunella microcarpa), pineapple (Ananas comosus) puree and their

combination on the meat quality of beef. Specifically, it aimed to evaluate the aroma,

texture, flavor, juiciness, tenderness and over-all acceptability of beef.

The four (4) treatments were as follows: Treatment 1 (control) (250 grams

beef + 250 ml water), Treatment 2 (250 grams beef + 250 ml calamansi puree),

Treatment 3 (250 grams beef + 250 ml pineapple puree) and Treatment 4 (250

grams beef + 150 ml calamansi + 150 ml pineapple puree). The study was laid out in

a Completely Randomized Design (CRD).

A total of three (3) kilograms of beef from a three to four-year old cattle was

prepared and cut into four (4) equal sizes weighing 750 grams, divided into three (3),

corresponding to three (3) replications containing 250 grams. Each 250 grams were

cut into five (5) cubes of approximate 50 grams each treatment. It was then placed in

a non-reactive container with its different marinating agents marinated for six hours.

The meat was then oven roasted uniformly for 45 minutes at 160⁰C and was placed

on the coded plates. These were presented to the five (5) members of tasting panel

for the sensory evaluation using hedonic rating scales.

The results can be summarized as follow:

1. Average aroma showed no significant differences among treatment means

with Treatment 4 having the highest mean of 4.04 while the Treatment 3 had the

lowest mean of 3.80. Treatments 1, 2, 3, and 4 descriptively rated as “Moderately

Desirable Beef Aroma”. The Coefficient of Variance resulted as 6.23%.

2. Average texture showed significant differences (p<.05) among treatment

means with Treatment 4 having the highest mean of 3.86 while Treatment 1 had the
 24

lowest mean of 3.13. It resulted that the Coefficient of Variance of 5.87%. Marinating

beef with pineapple and its combination with calamansi significantly improved beef

texture. Treatment 1 falls under descriptive rating of “Rigid” while Treatments 2, 3

and 4 descriptively rated as “Loose”.

3. Average flavor showed no significant difference among treatment means

with Treatment 2 having the highest mean of 3.59 while Treatment 1 had the lowest

mean of 3.10. Treatment 1 falls under descriptive rating of “Normal Beef Flavor” while

Treatments 2, 3 and 4 descriptively rated as “Moderately Desirable Beef Flavor”. The

Coefficient of Variance resulted as 6.20%.

4. Average juiciness showed no significant difference among treatment

means with Treatment 4 having the highest mean of 3.88 while Treatment 1 having

the lowest mean of 3.14. Treatments 1 and 3 descriptively rated as “Just Juicy” while

Treatments 2 and 4 descriptively rated as “Moderately Juicy”. The Coefficient of

Variance resulted as 7.87%.

5. Average tenderness showed no significant difference among treatment

means with Treatment 2 having the highest mean of 3.92 while Treatment 1 having

the lowest mean of 3.34. Treatment 1 falls under descriptive rating of “Just Tender”

while Treatments 2, 3 and 4 descriptively rated as “Tender”. The Coefficient of

Variance resulted as 7.10%.

6. Average over-all acceptability showed no significant difference among

treatment means with Treatment 4 having the highest mean of 4.13 while Treatment

1 having the lowest mean of 3.78. Treatments 1, 2, 3 and 4 descriptively rated as

“Moderately Acceptable”. The Coefficient of Variance resulted as 3.96%.

Results of the study showed non-significant differences among treatment

means on the meat’s aroma, flavor, juiciness, tenderness and over-all acceptability.

However, a significant effect was obtained in texture rating where beef treated with
 25

calamansi (Treatment 2), pineapple puree (Treatment 3) and their combination

(Treatment 4) gave significantly better beef texture rating over the control.

Given the results, it is then recommends to use calamansi and pineapple

puree and their combination to improve texture of roasted beef, with longer hour of

marinating period.
 26

LITERATURE CITED

Non-electronic:

AGSAOAY JR. J. Z., (2011-2012). Meat Quality of Chevon (Capra hircus) Marinated
With Ginger Extract (Zingiber officinale), Pineapple Puree (Ananas comosus)
And Their Combination. Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis. Central
Mindanao University. p20

BAGUIO, J. M., (2012-2013). Meat Quality of Chevon Treated With Papaya (Carica
papaya), Pineapple Juice (Ananas comosus) and Its Combination.
Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis. Central Mindanao University. p23

ELLEVERA, R. J., (2013-2014). Meat Quality of Culled Mallard Duck (Anas

platyrhynchos)Marinated With Calamansi (Citrofortunella microcarpa),
Pineapple (Ananas comosus), and Guyabano (Anona muricata) Puree.
Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis. Central Mindanao University. p6

SALO, R. V., (2009-2010). Meat Quality of Broiler Chicken (Gallus domesticus) Fed
With Commercial Ration Added With Varying Levels of Fresh Vermi
Worm (Eudrilus eugeniae). Unpublished Undergraduate Thesis. Central
Mindanao University.

SINGH, A., 2003. Fruit Physiology, 5th revised and enlarged edition. New Denhi,
India. p399.

Electronic:

ANONYMOUS, 2007. Calamansi: the Miniature Orange, WP – Jan-Dec 2007.

http://fnri.dost.gov.ph/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=1066

ANONYMOUS, 2011a. Tenderizing Beef. http://www/livestrong.com/article/545055

-natural-meat-tenderizer-to-cook-beef-in/

ANONYMOUS, 2011b. Marinating. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinating

ANONYMOUS, 2011c. Meat. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meat

ANONYMOUS, 2011d. Meat Tenderizer. http://www.wisegeek.com/how-do-meat

-tenderizers-work.htm

ANONYMOUS, 2013. Enzymes to Improve Beef Tenderness.

http://www.beefresearch.org/...1beefresearch/adding%20Enzymes
%29Improve%20Beef%20Tenderness.pdf
 27

BREWER, S. M., 2013.

http://www.beefusa.org/uDocs/understandingthechemistryofbeefflavor.pdf

HOA VAN BA, INHO HWANG, DAWOON JEONG and AMMA TOUSEEF, 2014.
http://www.intechopen.com/books/latest-research-into-quality-control/principle
-of-meat-flavors-and-future-prosp.

LAWRIE, R. A., 2006. Lawrie Meat Science. 7th ed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/meat.

Downloaded: August 2011

LYLE, S., 2006. Fruit and Nuts: A comprehensive guide to the cultivation, uses and
health benefits of over 300 food-producing plants/ Susanna Lyle, USA:
Tember press. p.64

MARCHELLO, J. A. and F. D. DRYDEN, 2014.

http://arizona.openrepository.com/arizona/bitstream/10150/295897/1/pa-20-
04-014-015.pdf. Downloaded: December 2014.

MILLER, R. K., SAWYER, J., and TEDESHI, L., 2011. Interactive Effects of
Tenderness Genotype and Growth Enhancement Technologies on
Performance and Beef Tenderness in Feedlot Heifers.
http://www.beefresearch.org/cmdocs/beefresearch/pe_project_summaries/fy0
9genotype_and_growth_enhancement_technologies.pdf. Downloaded:
September 2014.

MILLER, R. K., S. B. SMITH, and G. R. CARSTEN, 2011. New Beef Tenderness

Theory.http://www.beefresearch.org/cmdocs/beefresearch/pe_project_summ
aries/fy10new_beef_tenderness_theory.pdf. Downloaded: September 2014.

MAULDIN, J., 2011. Tenderness.

http://www.jackmauldin.com/cooking_techniques_to_become_tenderness.htm

OAHU, K., 2010. About Meat Tenderizers, at Uncle Ken’s Corner Table.
http://akueats.com/uncle-kens-corner-table-meat-t.asp.

WASSER, B., 2012. 2010/2011 Survey provides report card on beef tenderness.
http://www.beefresearch.org/beefissuesquarterly.aspx?id=3985. Download:
September 2014.
 28

APPENDICES
 29

Appendix Table 1. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for the aroma rating of roasted
beef treated with calamansi (Citrofortunella microcarpa),
pineapple (Ananas comosus), puree and their combination

Ftab

SV df SS MS Fc 0.05 0.01

Treatmen 3 0.09 0.03 0.52ns 4.07 7.69

t

Error 8 0.48 0.06

Total 11 0.57

C.V. = 6.23%
ns = not significant

Appendix Table 2. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for the texture rating of roasted
beef treated with calamansi (Citrofortunella microcarpa),
pineapple (Ananas comosus), puree and their combination

Ftab

SV df SS MS Fc 0.05 0.01

Treatmen 3 0.82 0.27 6.42* 4.07 7.69

t

Error 8 0.34 0.04

Total 11 1.16

C.V. = 5.87%
* = significant
 30

Appendix Table 3. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for the flavor rating of roasted
beef treated with calamansi (Citrofortunella microcarpa),
pineapple (Ananas comosus), puree and their combination

Ftab

SV df SS MS Fc 0.05 0.01

Treatmen 3 0.38 0.13 2.86ns 4.07 7.69

t

Error 8 0.35 0.04

Total 11 0.73

C.V. = 6.20%
ns = not significant

Appendix Table 4. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for the juiciness rating of roasted
beef treated with calamansi (Citrofortunella microcarpa),
pineapple (Ananas comosus), puree and their combination

Ftab

SV df SS MS Fc 0.05 0.01

Treatmen 3 0.89 0.30 3.82ns 4.07 7.69

t

Error 8 0.62 0.08

Total 11 1.51

C.V. = 7.87%
ns = not significant
 31

Appendix Table 5. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for the tenderness rating of

roasted beef treated with calamansi (Citrofortunella microcarpa),
pineapple (Ananas comosus), puree and their combination

Ftab

SV df SS MS Fc 0.05 0.01

Treatmen 3 0.56 0.19 2.73ns 4.07 7.69

t

Error 8 0.55 0.07

Total 11 1.11

C.V. = 7.10%
ns = not significant

Appendix Table 6. Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) for the over-all acceptability

rating of roasted beef treated with calamansi (Citrofortunella
microcarpa), pineapple (Ananas comosus), puree and their
combination

Ftab

SV df SS MS Fc 0.05 0.01

Treatmen 3 0.25 0.08 3.40ns 4.07 7.69

t

Error 8 0.20 0.02

Total 11 0.45

C.V. = 3.96%
ns = no significant