Special-Fed Veal: Separable components, proximate composition, and nutrient analysis of selected raw and cooked, wholesale and retail cuts

Meat Science 148 (2019) 19–31

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Meat Science journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/meatsci

Special-Fed Veal: Separable components, proximate composition, and nutrient analysis of selected raw and cooked, wholesale and retail cuts☆

T

⁎

C.C. Perhama, C.L. Gifforda, D.R. Woernera, , T.E. Englea, K.S. Sellinsa, R.J. Achesona, L.W. Douglassb,1, J.D. Tatuma, R.J. Delmorea, A. Cifellic,2, S.H. McNeillc, K.E. Belka a

Center for Meat Safety and Quality, Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Campus Delivery 1170, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA Private Consultant, Longmont, CO 80501, USA c National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Centennial, CO 80112, USA b

A R T I C LE I N FO

A B S T R A C T

Keywords: Veal Composition Nutrient Analysis

Nutrition research continues to be important for consumers to make informed food purchasing decisions and is used in nutrition policy decisions. The objective of this study was to analyze the nutrient concentration of raw and cooked cuts from special-fed veal calves to update nutrient data in the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference (SR) Release 27. Packages of wholesale (whole loin roasts, center-cut hindshanks and ground veal) and retail veal cuts (osso buco foreshanks, loin chops, leg cutlets and shoulder blade chops) were randomly collected in original vacuum packaging from six U.S. suppliers. Packages were shipped to the Colorado State University Meat Laboratory for cut dissection, cooking, and nutrient analysis. Composites of lean, external fat and seam fat were formed for analysis of proximate, fatty acid, vitamin and mineral composition. Results from this study identified additional fatty acids, established choline concentration, and provided updated veal nutrient composition information for inclusion in USDA SR 27.

1. Introduction Consumer interest in nutrient composition of foods has continued to increase due to heightened health awareness through news media and health professional recommendations. The American obesity epidemic and resulting health recommendations to decrease the consumption of foods with high fat and sodium concentration resulted in consumers making more health-conscious food choices. The 2015 Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended reducing consumption of total fat, saturated fat, trans fat, and sodium (USDA & USDHHS, 2015). Of the total protein food purchases made by consumers, there is a disfavor for red meat due to generalization of red meat being viewed as “unhealthy” as a result of total fat and saturated fat concentration (IFICF, 2009). However, recent data show that over 20 USDA-classified “lean” cuts of beef are readily available to consumers for purchase at retail stores. (NCBA, 2014a; USDA-ARS, 2016c). Nutritional data have been disseminated by the USDA-ARS Nutrient Data Laboratory (NDL) through the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference. This publicly accessible online database is used

globally to develop nutritional guidelines, provide nutrition information for on-pack labeling claims, develop meal calculations and make nutritional statements (Ahuja, Moshfegh, Holden, & Harris, 2013). Nutrient data for veal were originally published in the USDA's Handbook No. 8, Composition of Foods–Raw, Processed, Prepared Chapter 17, and the most updated publication was in 1989 (USDA-ARS, 2013a). The handbook contained veal data from the work of Ono, Berry, and Douglass (1986), and was the last journal-published research on veal nutrient composition. Handbook No. 8 data were incorporated into the USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference (SR) Release 11 in 1996 (USDA-ARS, 2016a). The most recent, (unpublished in the scientific literature) veal nutrient information included only breast and shank cuts. This research was conducted by Dr. Dennis Buege at the University of Wisconsin which was submitted for contribution to the SR Release 12 in 1998 (USDA-ARS, 2016b). The information in the present work was needed because these data reflect the current veal supply chain. There are three types of veal: bob veal, special-fed, and “non-special-fed” or pasture-raised veal. Special-fed veal calves receive a milk-

☆

Funded by The Beef Checkoff Corresponding author. E-mail address: [email protected] (D.R. Woerner). 1 Private Consultant, Longmont, CO 80501 2 National Cattlemen's Beef Association, Centennial, CO 80112 ⁎

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.09.016 Received 16 May 2017; Received in revised form 19 September 2018; Accepted 20 September 2018 Available online 22 September 2018 0309-1740/ © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Meat Science 148 (2019) 19–31

C.C. Perham et al.

heated until a surface temperature of 195 °C was reached. Pre-heated surface temperatures were monitored using an infrared thermometer. Individual cuts were placed on the grill and the cooking start time of each was recorded. Leg cutlets were flipped after 30 s. to ensure even cooking. Similar to Acheson et al. (2015), individual loin chops and blade chops were flipped after four minutes of cooking time or once an internal temperature of 35 °C (if temperature reached 35 °C before 4 min of cooking time occurred) was reached to guarantee even cooking. Digital thermocouple thermometers (Digi-Sense; Cole Parmer, Vernon Hills, IL) were used for temperature monitoring of cuts. Once internal temperature reached 70 °C, each cut was removed from the grill and final internal temperature and cooked weight (to the nearest 0.1 g) were recorded. Immediately following cooking, all steaks were placed on wire racks and chilled uncovered at refrigeration temperatures (0 to 4 °C) for at least 12 h prior to dissection.

replacer formula diet, that is comprised of either soy or milk products until they reach a live weight of approximately 226 kg (500 pounds) and are usually 20 to 22 weeks of age (AVA, 2011). According to the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (2014b), special-fed veal occupies approximately 75% of the U.S. veal market. Additionally, this type is the most common type of veal sold to general consumers. In order to provide current nutritional information in the USDA database to reflect the current supply of veal, The Beef Checkoff and the NDL collaborated with Colorado State University to obtain nutrient data for special-fed veal. The objective of this study was to analyze the nutrient composition of raw and cooked cuts from special-fed veal calves for the purpose of updating nutrient data, and for inclusion in the USDA Food Composition Database. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Experimental design and product procurement

2.2.2. Braising Braising was used to cook osso buco foreshanks. A six-quart covered non-stick Dutch oven (Calphalon Corp., Toledo, OH) was used to hold each individual cut during cooking. Distilled, deionized water was added until the cut was covered, and the volume was recorded. The Dutch oven was lidded prior to being placed into a conventional oven preheated to 120 °C. Entry and exit cook time was recorded for each individual sample, and samples were cooked for a set time of 2.5 h or 150 min (calculated end temperature of 80.7 ± 3.7 °C). Stainless steel tongs were used to transfer cuts to a colander following exit cook time and allowed to cool for 10 min. The remaining liquid was collected for measurement and recorded (to the nearest 0.1 g). Weights of all recovered meat were recorded. All cooked cuts were placed on wire racks after weighing and chilled uncovered at refrigeration temperatures (0 to 4 °C) for at least 12 h before dissection.

Special-fed veal sampling was designed to be representative of the majority of veal cuts merchandized in U.S. retail stores. During the study design, USDA-NDL was consulted for collaboration on this study. Veal cuts (IMPS # 332, 1312, 1332, 337A, 1336, 1309A, and 396; North American Meat Processors Association, 2010) were supplied from six separate U.S. harvest facilities or suppliers that represented a national composite of special-fed (non-bob) veal calves. Packages of each cut were collected from each harvest facility for both raw and cooked designation by personnel from Colorado State University randomly selecting product from the production line after packaging in original, vacuum packaging occurred. An equal number of packages were collected from each supplier resulting in a total of 24 packages (leg cutlets designated for both raw and cooked analysis and loin chops) or 12 packages (all other cuts included in the study) per cut and per preparation designation (raw/cooked) being included in the study. Grade of veal was not considered during collection since 98% of veal sold at retail is graded “Good” as described by American Veal Association (2011). Retail cuts collected were osso buco foreshanks (IMPS 1312); loin chops (IMPS 1332); leg cutlets (IMPS 1336); and shoulder blade chops (IMPS 1309A). Wholesale cuts collected were whole loin roasts (IMPS 332); center-cut hindshanks (IMPS 337A); and ground veal (IMPS 396). Wholesale whole loin roasts and center-cut hindshanks packaged individually from each supplier were designated to raw analysis only. Packages of loin chops and osso buco foreshanks were designated for cooked analysis only. Additional packages of leg cutlets, shoulder blade chops, and ground veal were collected since these cuts were designated for both raw and cooked analysis. All packages of veal cuts were frozen at −20 °C until dissection following standardized protocols used in previous research (Acheson et al., 2015; Martin et al., 2013; West et al., 2014).

2.2.3. Pan-grilling Ground veal was cooked by pan-grilling. Loaves of ground veal were formed and packaged by each supplier during product collection. Contents of each retail package was cooked individually on a non-stick anodized aluminum skillet (Calphalon Corp., Toledo, OH). Skillets were pre-heated to a surface temperature of 195 °C and monitored with an infrared thermometer. A stainless-steel spatula was used to separate ground veal into crumbles to ensure even cooking and an infrared thermometer was used to monitor product temperature during cooking (Mastercool, Model 52,224-SP, Randolph, NJ). Once the internal temperature reached a minimum of 71 °C, ground veal was removed from the heat source and the product was placed into a stainless-steel colander to cool for 10 min. Final weights were recorded (to the nearest 0.1 g) and samples were chilled uncovered at refrigerated temperatures (0 to 4 °C) for 12–24 h prior to homogenization. 2.3. Retail cut dissections

2.2. Cooking of retail cuts Dissection of raw and cooked retail cuts into separable components was conducted following standardized protocol. Separable components were defined as follows: refuse included waste comprised of all bone and inedible heavy connective tissue; separable lean included all muscle, intramuscular fat, and any light connective tissue deemed edible; external fat included all adipose tissue located on the outer surface of the cut; and seam fat (intermuscular fat) included all seam fat deposited between muscles within a cut. Prior to dissection, raw cuts were tempered in a single layer at 0 to 4 °C for 24 to 48 h. Dissections were completed in the absence of direct light and with the use of powder-free nitrile gloves at all times to prevent contamination or degradation of nutrients. Individual sample weights were recorded to the nearest 0.1 g for the following components: initial retail cut weight, separable lean, refuse, external fat, and seam fat. If the total weight of separable components was outside a set yield tolerance range of 97 to 101% of the initial cut weight, then the sample was removed from the study and

Retail cuts designated for cooking included the following: shoulder blade chops, center-cut. hindshanks, loin chops, leg cutlets and ground veal. Cuts for cooking were tempered in. a single layer on wire racks at 0 to 4 °C for 24 or 48 h. Upon thawing, each individual cut was blotted to remove purge, weighed to the nearest 0.1 g, and raw temperature was recorded using a digital thermocouple thermometer (Digi-Sense; Cole Parmer, Vernon Hills, IL). Each of the cuts designated for cooking used one of three cooking methods: grilling, roasting or pan-grilling. 2.2.1. Grilling Leg cutlets, loin chops, and shoulder blade chops were assigned to grilling and were cooked individually. Prior to grilling, a Salton twosided electric grill (Model GRP99, Salton Inc., Lake Forest, IL) was pre20

Meat Science 148 (2019) 19–31

C.C. Perham et al.

considered valid by the USDA Nutrient Data Laboratory (NDL) when the approved quality control material fell within the standard deviation presented on the certificate of analysis for reference material. Each sample analysis was conducted in duplicate with means of duplicates presented in this study.

replaced with an extra sample. 2.4. Retail cut homogenization Following dissection, homogenization and aliquoting procedures were performed using powder-free nitrile gloves and in the absence of direct light to protect nutrients. Separable lean of the same cut, supplier, and raw or cooked designation was cut into 2.5-cm3 pieces and placed in a stainless-steel bowl containing liquid nitrogen until the pieces became completely frozen. Frozen pieces were placed in a 7quart (6.62-L) Robot Coupe BLIXER 6 V (Robot Coupe USA INC., Ridgeland, MS) and blended until the sample was a finely-powdered homogenate. Each separable lean sample was blended for approximately 10 s on low speed (1500 rpm) and 30 s on high speed (3500 rpm). Upon homogenization, each sample was aliquoted into individual Whirl-pak bags: 60 g designated for proximate analysis, 100 g designated for proximate back-up, and 100 g designated for archive. Seam and external fat from raw and cooked samples were homogenized separately. All fat samples were homogenized under the same standard procedures as used with separable lean. All samples were stored double bagged at −80 °C until composites were formed and nutrient analyses were performed.

2.5.1. Moisture analysis Oven drying method 950.46 (AOAC International, 1995) was used to determine moisture analysis. Approximately 1 g of homogenate from samples were weighed into aluminum tins and allowed to dry for 24 h at 100 °C in a forced air-drying oven (Lab Line Imperial II Radiant Heat Oven, Lab Line Instruments, Thermo Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA). The percent moisture (%M) formula used for calculations was: % M = [(wet weight – dry weight)/wet weight] x 100. 2.5.2. Ash analysis Ash concentration was determined using the method described in AOAC International 923.03 or 920.153 (1995). Approximately 1.0 g sample was placed into a dry, pre-weighted crucible and inserted into a Thermolyne box furnace (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA) at 600 °C for 18 h. Percent ash (% Ash) formula used for calculations was % Ash = (ash weight / wet weight) x 100. 2.5.3. Protein analysis Crude protein concentration was determined using the method described by the AOAC International (2006) Official Method 992.15 in which a nitrogen determinator (Leco TruSpec CN; Leco Corporation, St. Joseph, MI) was used. Percent protein was determined by multiplying total percentage of nitrogen by a factor of 6.25.

2.4.1. Lean compositing Three composites were formed with equal-contributing homogenate weights from cuts of raw or cooked preparation from two suppliers for each composite. Proximate analysis (moisture, protein, fat, ash), total cholesterol, fatty acid composition, and ICP minerals (Ca, Mg, K, Na, Fe, Zn, Cu, Mn) were determined for each composite and an overall mean was computed. Of the three-composites of separable lean only, a further composite was formed for each cut by using equal homogenate weights of lean tissue from all six suppliers to form one single, national composite for the analysis of vitamin E, B-vitamins, vitamin D, selenium, and choline. Composited samples for nutrient analysis were aliquoted into Whirl-Pak bags in the presence of dry ice. Any samples analyzed at off-site laboratories were shipped overnight with dry ice.

2.5.4. Fat analysis Total fat was determined using the method described by Folch, Lees, and Sloane Stanley (1957) and AOAC International method 983.23 (2006). Approximately 1 g of sample was homogenized in 2:1 chloroform: methanol solution and placed on an orbital shaker at room temperature for 20 min. Homogenates were filtered through ashless filter paper prior to adding 4 mL of 0.9% NaCl to the filtered sample and refrigerated for 24 h. Following the filtrate separating into two phases, the low phase was aspirated and placed into a pre-weighed scintillation vial. Vials were dried under N2 gas and were followed by vial air drying under a hood for 2 h. The vial was placed in a forced air drying oven for 12 h at 100 °C. The percent fat (% fat) formula used for calculations was %Fat = [(total volume of chloroform:methanol/10 x final lipid weight)/sample weight] x 100.

2.4.2. Fat compositing Equal homogenate weights of separable seam fat from all veal cuts were combined to make two single, national composites of seam fat: one raw seam fat composite and one cooked seam fat composite. External fat was composited following the same procedure. Composited fat samples for nutrient analysis were aliquoted and shipped under the same procedures used in lean compositing.

2.5.5. Fatty acid analysis Analysis of fatty acids was accomplished using the Park and Goins (1994) method described by Phillips et al. (2010). Extracted lipid from fat analysis was derivatized to fatty acid methyl esters (FAMES) and analyzed by gas chromatography (Hewlett-Packard, Agilent Model 6890 Series II, Avondale, PA) fixed with a Series 7683 injector and flame ionization detector. The instrument was equipped with a 100-m x 0.25-mm (id) fused silica capillary column (SP-2560 Supelco Inc. Bellefonte, PA). These were quantified by calculating percentage of individual FAME peaks of total FAME analyzed, and identified based on QC standards.

2.5. Nutrient analysis Nutrient analyses were performed at USDA-ARS approved laboratories using the compositing scheme outlined previously. Laboratories analyzed USDA-ARS approved quality control materials to demonstrate their ability to ensure accurate and precise data, prior to conducting nutrient analyses of veal samples. These materials included Standard Reference Material 1546 Meat Homogenate (MHA) obtained from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST, Gaithersburg, MD), Chicken Baby Food and Beef Baby Food, (Canajoharie, NY) obtained from (FALCC) Food Analysis Laboratory Control Center (FALCC; Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA), for the purpose of validating nutrient determinations (Montgomery, 2008). Beef Baby Food, Chicken Baby Food, and MHA materials were analyzed with veal samples for validation and quality control (QC) of proximate analysis, ICP minerals, fatty acids, and total cholesterol. Beef baby food and chicken baby food were used as standards to validate vitamin E, choline, selenium, and vitamin B assays. A pork and egg standard obtained from FALCC was used to validate vitamin D and 25-hydroxy vitamin D analyses as described by Bilodeau et al. (2011) and for QC. Chemical analyses were

2.5.6. ICP mineral analysis Inductively coupled mass spectrometry minerals analysis (Ca, Mg, K, Na, Fe, Zn, Cu, Mn, P) were performed for each cut using the AOAC International Official Method 985.35, 984.27, 985.01 (2006) and AOAC International method 2011.14 (2011) to determine ICP mineral concentration. Briefly, ashing was used to destroy the organic matrix. Inductively coupled plasma spectrometer was used to compare emission of each element against standard solutions. 21

22

24 12 24 12 12

Cooked Cuts Leg Cutleth Shoulder Blade Chop Loin Chopj Osso Buco Foreshank Ground Veali

62.5 ± 19.28 484.4 ± 129.54 205.5 ± 33.55 290.1 ± 69.13 366.9 ± 78.16

45.9 ± 14.57 374.7 ± 103.80 165.3 ± 26.33 204.3 ± 47.10 259.8 ± 61.84

– – – – –

(g) ± SD

(g) ± SD

– – – – –

Hot cooked weight

Raw weight

73.4 77.4 80.5 70.4 70.8

– – – – –

(%)

Cooking yieldb

43.5 ± 11.00 352.4 ± 90.50 152.9 ± 23.00 186.9 ± 45.30 259.8 ± 63.90

55.2 ± 13.40 450.0 ± 95.40 1494.7 ± 327.40 1270.1 ± 56.50 357.2 ± 80.20

(g) ± SD

Pre-dissection weightc

43.5 ± 11.00 231.2 ± 60.70 93.5 ± 14.90 90.9 ± 25.20 –

55.2 ± 13.40 307.4 ± 78.70 858.9 ± 221.40 586.8 ± 72.10 –

(g) ± SD

Separable Leand

100.0 65.6 61.2 48.6 –

100.0 68.3 57.5 46.2 –

%

0 9.7 ± 8.10 6.6 ± 1.60 1.7 ± 2.80 –

0 8.8 ± 3.40 83.1 ± 36.40 7.2 ± 3.10 –

(g) ± SD

External Fate

– 2.8 4.3 0.9 –

– 2.0 5.6 0.6 –

%

–

4.3

0 17.9 ± 6.90 4.5 ± 1.50 4.9 ± 3.30 –

0 26.6 ± 11.50 82.4 ± 26.40 25.7 ± 10.60 –

(g) ± SD

Seam Fatf

– 5.1 2.9 2.6 –

– 5.9 5.5 2.0 –

%

0 89.4 ± 25.90 47.1 ± 13.00 87.9 ± 23.60 –

0 99.9 ± 15.20 440.7 ± 86.40 616.6 ± 40.60 –

(g) ± SD

Refuseg

– 25.4 30.8 47.0 –

– 22.2 29.5 48.5 –

%

Prior to dissection of cooked veal cuts, blade chops, loin chops and leg cutlets were grilled to an internal temperature of 70 °C using a clam-shell grill. Ground veal was cooked on a skillet until an average infrared thermometer reading of 71 °C was achieved. Osso buco foreshanks were braised in a covered non-stick dutch oven with deionized water at 120 °C for 150 min. b Cooking yield % = (hot cooked weight/pre-dissection raw weight) x 100. c Pre-dissection weights for cooked samples were obtained on samples chilled for 12–24 h after cooking. d Separable lean weight (g) included separable lean and any intramuscular fat found within. Separable lean % = [separable lean (g)/ pre-dissection cut weight (g)] x 100. e Seam fat weight (g) included any fat found between muscles. Seam fat % = [seam fat (g)/ pre-dissection cut weight (g)] x 100. f External fat weight (g) included all fat located on the outer surface of the cut. External fat % = [external fat (g)/ pre-dissection cut weight (g)] x 100. g Refuse weight (g) included all bone and heavy connective tissue, including the membrane covering external fat. Refuse % = [refuse (g)/ pre-dissection (g)] x 100. h Leg cutlets, raw and cooked, are sold at the retail level absent of external fat, refuse, and visible seam fat. i Ground veal was not dissected, as fat and some connective tissue is incorporated in the product.

a

24 12 12 12 12

Raw Cuts Leg Cutleth Shoulder Blade Chop Loin Roast Center-cut Hindshank Ground Veal9

Number of Packagesa

Table 1 Mean (g and %) and standard deviation (SD) of separable components from dissected raw and cookedb veal cuts.

C.C. Perham et al.

Meat Science 148 (2019) 19–31

Meat Science 148 (2019) 19–31

C.C. Perham et al.

and internal standard recovery post analysis.

2.5.7. Cholesterol analysis Standard methods described by Dinh, Blanton, Brooks, Miller, and Thompson (2008) were used to determine cholesterol analysis. A 125mL flask containing 10 mL or 95% ethanol and 2 mL of 50% potassium hydroxide in water was heated to boiling prior to accurately weighed samples being added. Refluxing was completed for 15 m before the flask was allowed to cool to room temperature. Toluene (10 mL) was added and mixed and the contents were transferred to a separatory funnel prior to being washed. The fraction containing toluene solution and extracted cholesterol was mixed with 5-alpha-cholestane standard and placed into 2.0 mL gas chromatography vials prior to gas chromatography being completed with a DB-17 capillary column. The inlet temperature was 250 °C and split ratio was 10:1.

2.5.12. Vitamin D and 25-hydroxyvitamin D metabolites Analysis for vitamin D metabolites was conducted using the chromatography-mass spectrophotometry method described by Huang, Laluzerne, Winters, and Sullivan (2009). Briefly, samples were prepared with 0.1% aqueous HOAC, vortexed for 2 s, deproteinized with 350 μl ACN and vortexed for 20 s. Samples were centrifuged and measured by liquid chromatography mass spectrometry equipped with a Hypersil silica analytical column. 2.6. Statistical analysis Means and standard deviations were computed for all dissection components from 6 suppliers and 12 or 24 packages, depending on cut (Table 1). Lean tissue was composited in equal weight portions within supplier and then randomly paired suppliers were composted to create three composites for nutrient analysis. Nutrient analysis data from composites were used to compute means and standard deviations resulting from three composites comprised of 6 suppliers and 12 or 24 packages for proximate, cholesterol, fatty acid and ICP mineral analysis.

2.5.8. Selenium analysis Selenium analyses were conducted following the AOAC International 986.15 hydride-generation method (AOAC International, 2005). Samples were digested by perchloric acid before being reduced by hydrochloric acid. Sodium borohydride was used to react samples and produce selenium hydride volatile. Absorption spectrometry with the quantitation limit of 30 ppb was used to analyze selenium hydride volatile.

3. Results and discussion 2.5.9. B vitamins (B12, B6, riboflavin, niacin, thiamin, and pantothenic acid) B-vitamin analyses were conducted utilizing the following methods for each assay: Vitamin B-12 – AOAC International 952.20 and 960.46 (2006); Vitamin B6 – AOAC International 961.15 (2006); Riboflavin – AOAC International 960.46 and 940.33 (2006); Niacin – AOAC International 944.13 and 960.46 (2006); Pantothenic acid – AOAC International 945.74, 960.46 and 992.07 (2006); Thiamin – AOAC International 942.23, 953.17, 957.17 (2006) and high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC) method described by Tang, Cronin, and Brunton (2006). Thiamin concentration was determined by the fluorometric method with HPLC conducted by dissolving samples in hydrochloric acid. In a heated sonicator, samples reacted with enzyme solution prior to injecting into a HPLC system with reversed phase column with a fluorescence detector. All other B-vitamins analyzed were measured using the microbiological method by dissolving samples in sulfuric acid. Samples were then inoculated with Saccharomyces spp. (vitamin B6) or Lactobacillus spp. (niacin, riboflavin, pantothenic acid and vitamin B12). Samples were incubated at 37 °C for 16–18 h. Turbidity was measured by mass spectrometry and growth response.

3.1. Separable components Leg cutlets are sold as a completely lean product without the presence of external fat, seam fat, or refuse, (Table 1) and ground veal is a comminuted mixture of ground lean and fat, so neither of these cuts involved dissection. Raw center-cut hindshank and cooked osso buco foreshank data included high percentages of refuse, consistent with bone and heavy connective tissue comprising these cuts. Refuse was removed as thoroughly as possible during dissection. 3.2. Cooking yield Cooking yield percentage was calculated as hot cooked weight/predissection raw weight * 100 (Table 1). Historically, cookery method and amount of external fat present have been considered factors affecting cooking yield, wherein higher levels of fat typically result in higher cooking yields (Jones, Savell, & Cross, 1992; Luchak et al., 1998; Wahrmund-Wyle, Harris, & Savell, 2000). Loin chops had the highest cooking yield among cooked cuts, most likely due to the presence of 6 mm (0.25 in.) external fat present on the cut. Shoulder blade chops had external fat present at a maximum of 6 mm (0.25 in.), and had a yield percentage similar to loin chops. Leg cutlets contained no external fat, bone, and heavy connective tissue, therefore higher cooking losses were observed for this cut during cooking were likely due to moisture loss. Pan-grilled ground veal and braised osso buco foreshanks had the greatest percent cook loss.

2.5.10. Total choline Total choline and metabolites analyses were conducted by isotope dilution mass spectrometry as described by Koc, Mar, Ranasinghe, Swenberg, and Zeisel (2002). Briefly, samples were hydrolyzed by 1 mL of chloroform/methanol (1:4) mixture in 100 μl of 1.2 N NaOH in methanol/water (1:1) mixture at 37 °C for 10 min. Mixture was neutralized with 150 μl of 1 N acetic acid followed by extraction with a mixture of 2 mL chloroform/methanol (9:1) mixture, 1 mL of isobutanol, and 2 mL of water. The lower phase was extracted twice with 1 mL of methanol/ water (1:2) mixture. Aqueous phases were combined and dried with a vacuum centrifuge, analytes were purified, and analysis was performed with liquid chromatography mass spectrometry consisting of a quadrupole ion trap mass spectrometer, API2 electrospray ionization and a HPLC system.

3.3. Proximate composition 3.3.1. Protein Percent protein concentration from cooked seam fat and external fat from single national composites are presented in Table 2. The protein concentration of cooked external fat was nearly twice the protein of raw external fat (Table 2). Difference in protein concentration was most likely due to the lack of lipids present in adipocyte cells from immature animals such as veal. This likely created a varied proportion of structural and sarcoplasmic proteins of adipocytes to lipid concentration when comparing adipocytes of more mature, finished beef animals (Swize, Harris, Savell, & Cross, 1992). Raw and cooked veal seam fat were similar in protein concentration. Protein concentration of raw leg cutlets and loin roasts were numerically higher than from center-cut hindshanks, shoulder blade chops

2.5.11. Vitamin E Vitamin E analyses were conducted using HPLC as described by Njeru et al. (1995). Briefly, samples were homogenized in acetone and deproteinized. Samples were heated with KOH prior to incubating for 0.5 h at 70 °C. Samples were cooled, extracted with hexane, centrifuged and dried by evaporation under N2 prior to injecting into HPLC with a normal phase column that uses UV detection with external calibration, 23

Meat Science 148 (2019) 19–31

C.C. Perham et al.

and ground veal (Table 3). Data from this study and data in SR-26 are not directly comparable due to differences in sample compositing methods. However, general comparisons are noted in this discussion, but should also be interpreted with caution. There was a numeric increase in protein concentration from data in this study (Table 3) compared to SR-26 data among leg cutlets (22.07% vs. 21.3% - USDA SR ID# 17099), loin roasts (21.85% vs. 20.2% USDA SR ID# 17107), and center-cut hindshanks (19.77% vs. 19.3% USDA SR ID# 17278) whereas protein concentration of ground veal numerically decreased (18.58% vs. 19.4% SR ID# 17142; USDA-ARS, 2016c). Martin et al. (2013) concluded raw beef protein concentration ranged from 21.2–22.0 g/100 g lean tissue for all grades of beef; whereas, raw veal loin roast protein concentration was 21.9 g/100 g lean tissue in this study, indicating that protein concentration for beef and veal are similar, with slight variation in protein concentration among cuts. Percent protein concentration of cooked cuts was numerically higher than in raw cuts (Table 3) most likely due to moisture loss during cooking (Jones et al., 1992). This was in agreement with previous studies that found an increased concentration of protein in cooked cuts compared to raw cuts (Smith, Harris, Haneklaus, & Savell, 2011; Wahrmund-Wyle et al., 2000). Protein concentration values were similar among all cooked cuts (Table 3).

Table 2 Means of proximate and nutrient composition from external fat and seam fat from raw and cooked veal cuts at a single-composite levela. Proximate and nutrient, units

External

Seam

Raw

Cooked

Raw

Cooked

Proximates, % Moisture Protein Fat Ash

38.19 8.85 51.60 0.47

32.20 16.57 53.11 0.59

42.77 11.62 50.17 0.57

35.99 11.16 50.17 0.57

Nutrient, units/100 g of tissue Thiamin (Vitamin B1), mg Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), mg Niacin (Vitamin B3), mg Pantothenic Acid (Vitamin B5), mg Vitamin B6, mg Cholesterol, mg Vitamin B12, μg Total Choline, mg Total Betaine, mg Vitamin D2, μg Vitamin D3, μg 25 Hydroxy Vitamin D3, μg Selenium, μg

0.03 0.09 2.78 0.26 0.15 86.15 1.35 32.0 10.8 < 0.2 5.51 0.94 5.2

0.05 0.16 4.16 0.39 0.21 85.24 1.61 41.9 15.3 < 0.2 3.56 0.83 9.8

0.04 0.15 3.81 0.88 0.23 82.91 1.56 44.9 11.7 < 0.2 3.54 0.67 8.0

0.05 0.16 2.84 0.36 0.20 82.31 1.62 53.8 15.4 < 0.2 4.53 0.85 9.7

Nutrient, units/g of tissue AlphaTocopherol, μg BetaTocopherol, μg Gamma Tocopherol, μg Delta Tocopherol, μg Choline, nmol P-Choline, nmol Phosphatidylcholine, nmol GP-Choline, nmol Betaine, nmol Sphingomyelin, nmol

2.99 0 0.55 0.44 148.5 149.7 2050.8 204.4 926.2 522.3

4.46 0 0.67 0.36 157.1 181.1 2764.9 233.5 1305.5 688.5

6.75 0 1.82 0 205.0 178.3 2962.8 215.8 997.2 745.5

5.21 0 1.22 0.45 215.1 193.3 3648.6 229.5 1316.2 879.4

Nutrient, mg/100 g Calcium Copper Iron Magnesium Manganese Phosphorus Potassium Sodium Zinc

31.0 0.52 0.73 19.2 0.01 133.0 107.0 88.9 0.83

57.6 0.26 1.09 25.5 0.04 168.0 152.0 103.2 1.42

29.7 0.27 0.87 23.4 0.01 150.0 179.0 88.9 1.77

42.6 0.32 1.15 24.5 0.03 152.0 155.0 87.1 2.00

3.3.2. Total fat Compared to other cuts in this study, percent total fat concentration of ground veal was higher among all raw and cooked cuts (Table 3). The highest fat concentration was expected for ground veal since it is a comminuted product of lean and fat. Percent fat concentration was similar among all other raw cuts (Table 3). Data from the current study indicate that fat concentration is numerically higher in cooked cuts compared to raw counterparts. These data suggest that percentages of total fat (Table 3) were numerically lower in comparison to separable lean only from veal reported in SR-26 among raw shoulder blade chops (2.88% vs. 3.3% - USDA SR ID# 17131), loin roasts (2.9% vs. 3.3% USDA SR ID# 17107), and center-cut hindshanks (1.64% vs. 2.8% USDA SR ID# 17278), however, leg cutlets (2.07% vs. 1.8% - USDA SR ID# 17099) and raw ground veal (13.06% vs. 6.8% - USDA SR ID# 17142) were numerically higher in total fat (USDA-ARS, 2016c). Shoulder blade chops contained the greatest numerical seam fat and had the highest numerical total fat other than ground veal (Table 3). Seam fat lies between muscles and is less likely to be lost during cooking than external fat (Jones et al., 1992). Percent total fat concentration from raw veal loin roast was 2.9% compared to 5.41% total

a Data resulted from a single, national composite of all cuts of raw or cooked preparation from all suppliers.

Table 3 Means (%, g/100 g) and standard deviation (SD) for proximate percentages and cholesterol concentration (mg/100 g) of separable lean from raw and cooked veal cuts on a three-composite levela. (%, g/100 g separable lean tissue) Veal Cut

(mg/100 g separable lean tissue)

Protein

Fat

Ash

Moisture

Cholesterol

(%) ± SD

(%) ± SD

(%) ± SD

(%) ± SD

(mg) ± SD

Raw Cuts Leg Cutlet Loin Roast Center-cut Hindshank Shoulder Blade Chop Ground Veal

22.07 21.85 19.77 19.60 18.58

± ± ± ± ±

0.69 0.69 0.46 0.60 1.35

2.07 ± 0.29 2.90 ± 0.25 1.64 ± 0.24 2.88 ± 0.99 13.06 ± 3.49

1.10 1.04 0.98 1.00 0.93

± ± ± ± ±

0.03 0.03 0.04 0.04 0.11

75.20 74.79 77.97 76.29 66.16

± ± ± ± ±

0.30 0.68 0.27 0.47 3.30

55.61 54.62 62.33 59.75 48.99

Cooked Cuts Leg Cutlet Loin Chop Osso-Buco Foreshank Shoulder Blade Chop Ground Veal

31.89 29.75 29.12 27.33 25.83

± ± ± ± ±

1.26 1.06 9.64 0.37 1.47

2.63 ± 0.47 4.44 ± 0.46 4.51 ± 0.79 5.53 ± 0.51 11.78 ± 2.90

1.47 1.10 0.96 0.98 1.07

± ± ± ± ±

0.22 0.05 0.11 0.26 0.22

65.32 64.65 63.28 66.44 59.87

± ± ± ± ±

0.96 0.99 3.70 0.78 2.12

71.65 ± 1.43 78.23 ± 2.45 92.2 ± 8.31 76.96 ± 25.03 76.72 ± 3.47

± ± ± ± ±

6.15 3.87 2.67 5.58 2.73

a Means and standard deviations were computed of data from three composites wherein each composite included separable lean of the same cut and of raw or cooked preparation from two paired suppliers.

24

Meat Science 148 (2019) 19–31

C.C. Perham et al.

cooked separable lean, a calculated average of approximately 33% of the total saturated fat was attributed to stearic acid, a saturated fatty acid which is widely accepted as neutral or beneficial in health effects (Kris-Etherton & Yu, 1997). Data from separable lean from raw veal loin roasts suggest that there are lower saturated fatty acid levels than USDA Select beef porterhouse steaks with similar low intramuscular fat content (USDA SR ID# 13468: USDA-ARS, 2016c). Additionally, the CLA concentration, including cis-9, trans-11 and trans-10, and cis-12, has been suggested to potentially have benefits to human health, although more research is needed (Bhattacharya et al., 2005; Dilzer & Park, 2012).

fat concentration of raw beef USDA Select porterhouse steak (separable lean only trimmed to 1/8″ fat, USDA SR ID# 13468) suggesting that veal may be as lean or leaner than similar beef cuts (USDA-ARS, 2016c). Percent total fat was similar for external fat and seam fat (Table 2). 3.3.3. Moisture Percent moisture concentration was numerically higher from raw seam fat compared to raw external fat (Table 2). Compared to other cuts in this study, ground veal contained the lowest percent moisture concentration among raw and cooked cuts (Table 3). Percent moisture was similar among raw cuts compared to SR – 26 data, except for ground veal (66.16% vs. 72.8% - USDA SR ID# 17142; USDA-ARS, 2016c).

3.3.6. ICP minerals (Ca, Fe, Mg, P, K, Na, Zn, Cu, Mn) In general, concentration of ICP minerals from external and seam fat were numerically higher in cooked samples in comparison to respective raw samples (Table 2). Concentration of iron, manganese, potassium, and zinc varied among all raw separable lean cuts and ground veal. Ground veal contained the highest iron concentration in comparison to all other raw veal cuts (Table 6). Iron concentration from veal is lower than levels found in beef, likely due to the lower iron concentration in calf diets leading up to slaughter in order to maintain a light, pale colored lean, as well as lower levels of circulating heme iron (Miltenburg, Wensing, Smulders, & Breukink, 1992). Data from the current study suggested numerically increased concentrations (Table 3) of iron, magnesium, sodium, and copper for numerous veal cuts compared to SR-26 data (USDA-ARS, 2016c). Mineral concentration of cooked cuts in this study could not be compared to historical data due to differing cooking methods. Cooked shoulder blade chops and osso buco foreshanks contained higher calcium and zinc levels than other cooked veal cuts in this study. Potassium and manganese levels were greatest for cooked leg cutlets compared to other cooked veal cuts.

3.3.4. Ash Percent ash concentration was similar between raw and cooked external and seam fat (Table 2), and similar among all raw veal cuts (Table 3). These data suggest that ash concentration of separable lean (Table 3) were similar to data from SR-26 data (USDA-ARS, 2016c). Ash concentration of cooked leg cutlets was numerically higher than all other cooked cuts (Table 3). 3.3.5. Fatty acids Results of fatty acid analyses are presented in Tables 4 and 5. Comparison of data from the current study to SR-26 suggest that more individual fatty acids were identified from this study, possibly due to more accurate techniques in fatty acid analysis. Fatty acid profiles were similar among raw and cooked lean cuts on a percentage basis in this study. Monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA), polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), conjugated linoleic acids (CLA), and stearic acid comprised the majority of the fatty acid profile for separable lean of both raw and cooked veal (Table 5). Of the saturated fatty acids detected in

3.3.7. Cholesterol Cholesterol data are presented in Table 3. Center-cut hindshanks and shoulder blade chops had the highest cholesterol concentration. These data suggest that ground veal numerically increased in total fat and numerically decreased in cholesterol compared to other veal cuts. This is likely due to the decrease in proportion of muscle cells to fat cells, contributing to a decrease in cholesterol concentration derived from muscle cells (Chizzolini, Zanardi, Dorigoni, & Ghidini, 1999; Swize et al., 1992). Hoelscher, Savell, Smith, and Cross (1988) suggested that cholesterol concentration in adipocytes and muscle cells vary based on cell membranes and storage components. Muscle cells contain 60–80% of cholesterol in the cell membrane, whereas adipocytes contain 88–92% of cholesterol in the storage component of the cell (Hoelscher et al., 1988). Decreased muscle cell membrane concentration in ground veal may have lowered the cholesterol levels at such a magnitude as to outweigh the addition of cholesterol from an increase in fat concentration. Cholesterol levels of raw separable lean beef were reported as 39–68 mg/100 g tissue (USDA-ARS, 2016c). Data from the current study resulted in similar concentration (49.0–62.3 mg/ 100 g). However, Faustman, Yin, and Nadeau (1992), suggested that cholesterol levels of cuts from veal calves would be expected to be higher than comparable beef cuts due to the younger age of veal calves resulting in the animal having a higher ratio of membrane cholesterol to muscle cell concentration. Cholesterol levels have numerically decreased by an average of 24.8 mg/100 g lean tissue for veal cuts in this study relative to similar cuts in SR-26 (USDA-ARS, 2016c). Separable lean from cooked veal leg cutlets contained similar levels of cholesterol (72 mg/100 g) to pork loin chops, which contained 69 mg/100 g of cholesterol (USDA SR ID# 10181, USDA-ARS, 2016c). Although the difference in cholesterol concentration of glycolytic (white) and oxidative (red) muscle fiber types has resulted in fasttwitch white fibers containing lower levels of cholesterol than do slowtwitch red fibers (Alasnier, Remignon, & Gandemer, 1996), data from the current study were similar or lower in cholesterol concentration

Table 4 Fatty acid composition (%) of total fat from external and seam fat from raw and cooked veal cutsa at a single-composite levelb. External

Seam

Fatty Acidc, % by weight of total fat

Raw

Cooked

Raw

Cooked

C10:0 C12:0 C12:1 C14:0 C14:1 C16:0 C16:1 C17:0 C17:1 C18:0 C18:1 trans-1 C18:1 trans-2 C18:1 trans-3 C18:1 t-vaccenic C18:1c9 C18:1c11 C18:2 C18:2c9t11 C18:2t10c12 C18:3 C20:0 Unknown C20:1 C20:2 C20:4 C20:5

0.07 0.07 0.03 3.14 0.82 23.93 3.81 1.23 0.88 13.49 0.27 0.45 2.58 1.64 41.82 1.81 2.83 0.46 0.06 0.13 0.06 0.12 0.20 0.01 0.09 0

0.03 0.08 0.04 2.87 1.08 25.73 4.60 1.14 1.10 10.98 0.19 0.50 2.26 1.78 41.32 1.94 2.99 0.65 0.06 0.11 0.04 0.12 0.23 0.01 0.11 0

0.03 0.08 0.04 2.88 1.09 23.75 4.62 1.14 1.10 11.01 0.19 0.48 2.27 1.79 43.36 1.95 2.86 0.66 0.06 0.11 0.04 0.12 0.23 0.01 0.11 0

0.08 0.02 0.06 2.34 0.56 23.48 3.48 1.14 1.02 13.53 0.34 0.39 2.82 0.63 40.23 2.08 5.63 0.27 0 0.20 0.05 0.10 0 0 1.35 0

a

Ground veal did not contribute fat to this data. Data resulted from a single, national composite of all cuts of raw or cooked preparation from all suppliers. c t = trans, c = cis. b

25

26

d

c

b

a

0.07 ± 0.02 0.08 ± 0.02 0.04 ± 0.01 2.44 ± 0.24 0.53 ± 0.08 23.38 ± 0.36 3.29 ± 0.21 1.24 ± 0.03 0.97 ± 0.05 14.68 ± 0.37 0.33 ± 0.01 0.35 ± 0.02 2.62 ± 0.10 0.70 ± 0.12 40.76 ± 1.12 1.92 ± 0.10 4.85 ± 1.12 0.27 ± 0.04 0.02 ± 0.02 0.15 ± 0.01 0.05 ± 0.01 0.10 ± 0.01 0.08 ± 0.13 0.01 ± 0.01 1.02 ± 0.42 0.04 ± 0.04

(%) ± SD

(%) ± SD

0.04 ± 0.02 0.08 ± 0.01 0.02 ± 0 2.68 ± 0.21 0.57 ± 0.05 23.93 ± 0.59 3.63 ± 0.18 1.26 ± 0.05 1.00 ± 0.04 14.27 ± 0.34 0.38 ± 0.03 0.38 ± 0.03 3.30 ± 0.26 0.67 ± 0.06 40.02 ± 1.16 1.85 ± 0.02 4.34 ± 0.11 0.32 ± 0.01 0.04 ± 0.01 0.18 ± 0.02 0.06 ± 0.01 0.10 ± 0.04 0.18 ± 0.10 0.01 ± 0.01 0.69 ± 0.03 0.02 ± 0.02

Shoulder Blade Chop

Leg Cutlet

0.08 ± 0.01 0.09 ± 0.01 0.04 ± 0.02 2.40 ± 0.22 0.51 ± 0.07 23.30 ± 0.52 3.23 ± 0.21 1.25 ± 0.05 0.96 ± 0.03 14.69 ± 0.20 0.35 ± 0.03 0.37 ± 0.03 2.81 ± 0.40 0.74 ± 0.09 39.78 ± 1.33 1.94 ± 0.09 5.56 ± 1.19 0.33 ± 0.05 0.02 ± 0.01 0.17 ± 0.05 0.05 ± 0.03 0.10 ± 0 0.03 ± 0.05 0.01 ± 0.01 1.16 ± 0.35 0.05 ± 0.04

(%) ± SD

Loin Roast

0.04 ± 0.01 0.08 ± 0.02 0.04 ± 0.02 2.53 ± 0.29 0.49 ± 0.06 23.49 ± 0.68 3.18 ± 0.15 1.29 ± 0.01 0.95 ± 0.04 15.12 ± 0.46 0.42 ± 0.13 0.41 ± 0.11 3.39 ± 0.40 0.74 ± 0.03 39.10 ± 0.52 1.79 ± 0.19 5.28 ± 1.53 0.31 ± 0.04 0.01 ± 0 0.18 ± 0.02 0.06 ± 0.03 0.11 ± 0.02 0.10 ± 0.11 0 0.86 ± 0.44 0.01 ± 0.02

(%) ± SD

Center-cut Hindshank

0.06 ± 0 0.08 ± 0.02 0.04 ± 0 2.47 ± 0.26 0.50 ± 0.04 23.03 ± 0.23 3.1 ± 0.12 1.42 ± 0.21 1.04 ± 0.06 15.18 ± 0.88 0.46 ± 0.17 0.45 ± 0.13 4.06 ± 1.72 0.77 ± 0.09 38.76 ± 2.63 1.87 ± 0.14 5.12 ± 1.75 0.30 ± 0.05 0.03 ± 0.03 0.18 ± 0.05 0.04 ± 0.02 0.12 ± 0.03 0.07 ± 0.07 0 0.85 ± 0.43 0.03 ± 0.03

(%) ± SD

Ground Veal

0.03 ± 0 0.08 ± 0.01 0.03 ± 01 2.76 ± 0.17 0.68 ± 0.05 23.65 ± 0.44 3.83 ± 0.15 1.21 ± 0 1.00 ± 0.03 13.98 ± 0.11 0.39 ± 0.03 0.38 ± 0.03 3.25 ± 0.33 0.66 ± 0.05 40.53 ± 1.14 1.93 ± 0.05 4.02 ± 0.24 0.34 ± 0.01 0.03 ± 0.02 0.16 ± 0.01 0.04 ± 0.04 0.13 ± 0.01 0.22 ± 0.03 0.02 ± 0.03 0.63 ± 0.09 0.02 ± 0.01

(%) ± SD

Leg Cutlet

Cooked

0.04 ± 0.02 0.07 ± 0.04 0.04 ± 0.01 2.6 ± 0.10 0.65 ± 0.32 23.7 ± 0.13 4.05 ± 1.39 1.2 ± 0.20 1.06 ± 0.13 13.40 ± 2.41 0.34 ± 0.06 0.36 ± 0.02 2.86 ± 0.27 0.77 ± 0.11 40.59 ± 1.96 2.00 ± 0.29 4.71 ± 0.93 0.29 ± 0.04 0.02 ± 0.01 0.16 ± 0.04 0.03 ± 0.01 0.08 ± 0.02 0.05 ± 0.05 0 0.90 ± 0.17 0.01 ± 0.02

(%) ± SD

Shoulder Blade Chop

0.05 ± 0.03 0.09 ± 0 0.04 ± 0.01 2.62 ± 0.14 0.51 ± 0.09 23.93 ± 0.31 3.42 ± 0.30 1.29 ± 0.04 1.00 ± 0.02 14.57 ± 0.37 0.38 ± 0.05 0.37 ± 0.03 3.10 ± 0.20 0.73 ± 0.09 39.60 ± 0.78 1.84 ± 0.02 4.87 ± 0.69 0.30 ± 0.04 0.03 ± 0.02 0.16 ± 0.04 0.03 ± 0.01 0.11 ± 0.03 0.05 ± 0.05 0 0.90 ± 0.18 0.01 ± 0.02

(%) ± SD

Loin Chop

0.06 ± 0.02 0.10 ± 0.04 0.05 ± 0.01 2.44 ± 0.23 0.67 ± 0.34 23.19 ± 0.12 4.05 ± 1.45 1.13 ± 0.17 1.03 ± 0.10 13.15 ± 2.34 0.33 ± 0.03 0.34 ± 0.01 2.61 ± 0.22 0.69 ± 0.20 40.59 ± 1.86 2.13 ± 0.32 5.55 ± 1.29 0.31 ± 0.05 0.02 ± 0.02 0.16 ± 0.01 0.03 ± 0 0.10 ± 0.03 0 0 1.23 ± 0.24 0

(%) ± SD

Osso Buco Foreshank

0.08 ± 0.04 0.09 ± 0.05 0.04 ± 0.01 2.46 ± 0.27 0.67 ± 0.34 23.28 ± 0.26 4.07 ± 1.49 1.14 ± 0.16 1.04 ± 0.12 13.13 ± 2.38 0.34 ± 0.02 0.38 ± 0.01 2.64 ± 0.19 0.75 ± 0.11 40.54 ± 1.79 2.11 ± 0.28 5.44 ± 1.45 0.31 ± 0.05 0.03 ± 0.03 0.16 ± 0.01 0.03 ± 0 0.10 ± 0.03 0 0 1.18 ± 0.31 0

(%) ± SD

Ground Veal

Standard deviations reported as 0 were less than 0.005. Separable lean used for all cuts, except ground veal, wherein the nature of the product is both lean and fat. Means and standard deviations were computed of data from three composites wherein each composite included separable lean of the same cut and of raw or cooked preparation from two paired suppliers. t = trans, c = cis.

C10:0 C12:0 C12:1 C14:0 C14:1 C16:0 C16:1 C17:0 C17:1 C18:0 C18:1 trans-1 C18:1 trans-2 C18:1 trans-3 C18:1 t-vaccenic C18:1c9 C18:1c11 C18:2 C18:2c9t11 C18:2t10c12 C18:3 C20:0 unknown C20:1 C20:2 C20:4 C20:5

Fatty acidd, % by weight of total fat

Raw

Table 5 Mean fatty acid composition (%) of total fat and standard deviation (SD)a from separable lean from raw and cooked veal cutsb at a three-composite levelc.

C.C. Perham et al.

Meat Science 148 (2019) 19–31

Meat Science 148 (2019) 19–31

C.C. Perham et al.

Table 6 Means (mg) and standard deviation (SD) of inductively coupled plasma (ICP) mass spectrometry analyzed minerals from separable lean (mg/100 g)a from raw and cooked veal cuts on a three-composite levelb. Calcium

Copper

Iron

Magnesiumc

Manganese

Phosphorus

Potassium

Sodium

Zinc

(mg) ± SD

(mg) ± SD

(mg) ± SD

(mg) ± SD

(mg) ± SD

(mg) ± SD

(mg) ± SD

(mg) ± SD

(mg) ± SD

Raw Cuts Leg Cutlet Loin Roast Center-cut Hindshank Shoulder Blade Chop Ground Veal

4.14 ± 0.61 10.56 ± 1.98 11.28 ± 1.45 22.63 ± 15.38 12.35 ± 7.13

0.3 ± 0.04 0.44 ± 0.04 0.36 ± 0.05 0.36 ± 0.13 0.47 ± 0.08

0.81 0.85 1.19 1.26 1.37

± ± ± ± ±

0.16 0.12 0.11 0.39 0.22

30.27 46.79 32.56 32.78 30.73

± ± ± ± ±

5.60 20.61 1.97 4.53 5.75

0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

± ± ± ± ±

0 0 0 0 0

211.9 237.0 211.7 208.9 196.9

± ± ± ± ±

22.97 22.80 18.18 42.83 47.68

273.3 259.8 162.9 202.5 198.3

± ± ± ± ±

25.82 16.13 23.43 47.04 46.59

85.6 ± 8.54 99.4 ± 8.88 109.3 ± 5.62 91.7 ± 6.07 103.5 ± 20.94

1.97 2.15 3.42 3.38 2.51

± ± ± ± ±

0.43 0.31 0.56 1.07 0.63

Cooked Cuts Leg Cutlet Loin Chop Osso Buco Foreshank Shoulder Blade Chop Ground Veal

6.23 ± 0.75 12.96 ± 1.76 20.60 ± 4.07 20.75 ± 2 0.00 17.67 ± 7.5

0.43 0.32 0.38 0.57 0.47

1.39 0.79 2.06 1.65 1.50

± ± ± ± ±

0.17 0.04 0.63 0.53 0.17

37.67 33.27 34.27 34.15 34.25

± ± ± ± ±

0.64 1.30 4.45 9.24 2.18

0.02 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01

± ± ± ± ±

0 0 0 0 0

276.5 213.8 218.0 252.9 231.1

± ± ± ± ±

42.01 12.86 28.88 19.71 17.92

323.3 238.5 204.9 244.5 245.2

± ± ± ± ±

11.63 16.79 23.72 25.57 19 0.00

87.7 ± 9.47 85.0 ± 5.12 90.3 ± 25.28 113.0 ± 27.91 146.5 ± 33.93

3.29 1.83 5.32 5.07 2.95

± ± ± ± ±

0.27 0.01 1.21 0.36 0.31

Nutrient, mg/100 g

a b

± ± ± ± ±

0.07 0.02 0.05 0.17 0.05

Standard deviations reported as 0 were less than 0.005. Raw and cooked separable lean was used in the assays to provide these results except for ground veal, wherein the nature of the product contains both lean and

fat. c Means and standard deviations were computed of data from three composites wherein each composite included separable lean of the same cut and of raw or cooked preparation from two paired suppliers.

in SR-26 containing 49.5 mg/100 g choline (USDA-ARS, 2013b); however, data from this study suggested that choline levels in raw and cooked veal cuts were numerically higher than that of veal baby food (Tables 6 and 7). Concentration of phosphatidylcholine among raw and cooked leg cutlets were numerically higher than all other raw and cooked cuts in this study (Tables 7 and 8). Additionally, concentration of sub-classes of choline nutrients all numerically increased due to cooking (Table 8).

compared to meat containing higher levels of oxidative, red muscle fibers. However, the same research from Alasnier et al. (1996) also concluded that when phospholipid levels are made equal among glycolytic and oxidative muscle fibers, oxidative fibers contain less cholesterol concentration. Cholesterol levels from cooked separable lean in this study were numerically higher than from raw separable lean mainly due to moisture loss, creating an increase in the concentration of all other components (Jones et al., 1992). Cholesterol concentration of raw and cooked external and seam fat were similar (Table 2), possibly due to a lower amount of moisture available for loss in adipose tissue (33–42%), compared to lean tissue containing 66–77% moisture (Hoelscher et al., 1988).

3.3.11. Vitamin E Concentration of alpha-tocopherol from veal were numerically higher (2.7–4.93 μg/g) compared to data reported by Engeseth, Gray, Booren, and Asghar (1993) as 1.0 μg/g for raw veal muscle. Concentration of alpha-tocopherol was greatest from raw ground veal (Table 7) and among cooked leg cutlets (Table 8). Concentration of alpha-tocopherol from external fat numerically increased due to cooking, but numerically decreased in seam fat (Table 2).

3.3.8. Selenium Selenium concentration was similar among all raw cuts and among all cooked cuts; however, higher concentration resulted among cooked cuts compared to raw cuts (Tables 7 and 8). Selenium data from the current study (Table 6) numerically increased in comparison to SR-26. However, comparisons to SR-26 data should be made3 with caution. Concentration of selenium numerically increased in external fat and seam fat from cooked veal (Table 2).

3.3.12. Vitamin D (D2, D3, and 25-hydroxy vitamin D3) Concentration of vitamin D in the current study was numerically higher in comparison to beef, other muscle foods, and vitamin-D-fortified 2% fat milk (Table 10). There are no data available from previous research reporting vitamin D levels in special-fed veal, and therefore, SR-26 does not include this nutrient. Although veal baby food was reported to contain 0.65 μg/100 g vitamin D (USDA, ARS, 2016c; USDA SR ID: 03005), the type and source of veal used are unclear. Additionally, results of raw ground veal (1.874 μg/100 g) and raw loin roasts (1.542 μg/100 g) suggest that there is higher vitamin D from veal cuts in this study as compared to veal baby food (Table 10). Vitamin D concentrations were similar among raw and cooked external and seam fat (Table 2). Vitamin D storage sites have been reported in various mammalian tissues. While Heaney et al. (2008) described vitamin D being stored in adipose tissue when supraphyisological intake occurs, Abboud et al. (2013) conversely described vitamin D, particularly 25-hydroxyvitamin D (25-OH-vitamin D), being stored in skeletal muscle. Other scientists have reported that neonatal rats had skeletal muscle deposition of 25OH-vitamin D originating from maternal transfer (Clements & Fraser, 1988). In human subjects, Foo et al. (2009) reported that lean body mass and vitamin D were positively correlated in adolescent girls, further suggesting that vitamin D may also be stored in muscle tissue. Similarly, vitamin D deposition could be occurring in skeletal

3.3.9. B-vitamins (B12, B6, riboflavin, niacin, thiamin, and pantothenic acid) Concentration of riboflavin (B2) and B6 were similar among raw cuts, but concentration of Niacin (B3), Pantothenic Acid (B5) and B12 were varied (Table 7). Concentration of riboflavin (B2), vitamin B6, and vitamin B12 (Table 7) of raw ground veal and separable lean from leg cutlets, loin roasts, and shoulder blade chops numerically increased compared to SR-26 data (USDA-ARS, 2016c). Concentration of B-vitamins were numerically higher in cooked cuts compared to raw cuts (Tables 7 and 8). Concentration of B-vitamins were similar among raw and cooked external and seam fat (Table 2). These data indicate numerous veal cuts potentially qualify for “Good Source of” and “Excellent Source of” for B-Vitamins based on separable lean only data in this study (Table 9). 3.3.10. Total choline Total isolated choline concentration was unavailable in previously published veal research, even among cholesterol oxidation research (Engeseth & Gray, 1994). There is a reference value for veal baby food 27

Meat Science 148 (2019) 19–31

C.C. Perham et al.

Table 7 Nutrient composition means of separable leana from raw veal cuts and ground vealb. Nutrient, units

Nutrient, units/100 g of tissue Thiamin (Vitamin B1), mg Riboflavin (Vitamin B2), mg Niacin (Vitamin B3), mg Pantothenic Acid (Vitamin B5), mg Vitamin B6, mg Vitamin B12, μg Total Choline, mg Total Betaine, mg Selenium, μg AlphaTocopherol, μg BetaTocopherol, μg Gamma Tocopherol, μg Delta Tocopherol, μg Choline, nmol P-Choline, nmol Phosphatidylcholine, nmol GP-Choline, nmol Betaine, nmol Sphingomyelin, nmol a

Raw Leg Cutlet

Shoulder Blade Chop3

Loin Roast

Center-cut Hindshankc

Ground Veal

0.10 0.34 9.28 0.58 0.60 2.08 120.0 28.4 16.0 3.05 0 0 0.24 114.3 167.2 9983.5 491.4 2424.6 758.6

0.11 0.43 4.61 1.05 0.47 2.88 – – 15.8 – – – – – – – – – –

0.09 0.31 7.25 0.69 0.68 2.65 110.5 23.4 18.0 2.67 0 0.39 0 290.7 305.3 8640.7 670.9 1994.2 695.9

0.08 0.39 5.37 0.66 0.40 1.92 – – 13.0 – – – – – – – – – –

0.11 0.28 5.52 0.45 0.67 3.66 96.5 25.6 13.1 4.93 0 0.63 0.39 150.8 332.7 7496.4 604.0 2184.1 680.8

Raw separable lean was used in the assays to provide these results with the exception of ground veal, wherein the nature of the product contains both lean and

fat. b c

Data resulted from a single, national composite of all cuts of raw or cooked preparation from all suppliers. Shoulder blade chops and center-cut hindshanks were not analyzed for choline, Vitamin E, Vitamin D, and 25-Hydroxy Vitamin D.

have < 10 g fat, 4.5 g or less of saturated fat, and < 95 mg of cholesterol per 100 g and per RACC. Products that are “extra lean” must have < 5 g fat, < 2 g saturated fat, and < 95 mg of cholesterol per 100 g or RACC (USDA, 2010). Products that can be labeled under the “Heart-Check” certification program promoted by the American Heart Association must have < 5 g of total fat, < 2 g of saturated fat, < 95 mg of cholesterol, < 0.5 g trans-fat and < 360 mg of sodium (AHA, 2014). Additionally, 9 CFR 317.354 mandates that the use of labeling claims such as “excellent source of,” “high,” and “rich in” requires 20% or more of the dietary reference intake (DRI) or the percent daily value (DV) per RACC. Furthermore, to be labeled a “good source,” the product must contain 10–19% of the DRI or DV per RACC (USDA-FSIS, 2013).

muscle among veal calves. Although the specific diets fed to live animals that produced these samples are unknown, the high concentration of vitamin D in milk-replacer formulas provided to veal calves may be a contributing factor to the increased vitamin D concentration resulting from these data. Collectively, concentration of vitamin D in special-fed veal diets and the age of animals at harvest may be driving factors contributing to differences in vitamin D levels between veal and beef cuts. 3.3.13. Labeling claims All labeling claims are based on a 100-g serving and reference amount customarily consumed (RACC) for meat products (USDA-FSIS, 2010). According to 9 CFR 317.362, products being called “lean” must

Table 8 Nutrient composition meansa from separable lean from cooked veal cuts at a varying composite levelsb. Nutrient, Units

Nutrient, units/100 g of tissue Total Choline, mg Total Betaine, mg Vitamin D2, μg Vitamin D3, μg 25 Hydroxy Vitamin D3, μg Selenium, μg AlphaTocopherol, μg BetaTocopherol, μg Gamma Tocopherol, μg Delta Tocopherol, μg Choline, nmol P-Choline, nmol Phosphatidylcholine, nmol GP-Choline, nmol Betaine, nmol Sphingomyelin, nmol a

Cooked Leg Cutlet

Shoulder Blade Chopc

Loin Chop

Osso Buco Foreshank3

Ground Veal

159.9 29.2 < 0.2 0.59 0.66 21.6 4.34 0 0.43 0 148.6 216.8 13,328.1 388.6 2494.4 1263.4

– – – – – 18.4 – – – – – – – – – –

150.0 27.4 < 0.2 0.80 0.66 26.1 3.75 0 0 0 219.2 243.2 12,276.0 492.0 2342.4 1165.2

– – – – – 20.7 – – – – – – – – – –

119.6 33.9 < 0.2 1.38 0.80 18.5 2.58 0 0.73 0.45 207.4 457.9 9232.6 556.8 2895.6 1025.7

Raw separable lean was used in the assays to provide these results with the exception of ground veal, wherein the nature of the product contains both lean and

fat. b c

Data resulted from a single, national composite of all cuts of raw or cooked preparation from all suppliers. Blade chops and osso buco foreshanks were not analyzed for choline, Vitamin E, Vitamin D, and 25-Hydroxy Vitamin D. 28

Meat Science 148 (2019) 19–31

C.C. Perham et al.

Table 9 Comparison of B-vitamin concentration from separable lean (per 100 g) from cooked veal cuts to B-vitamin recommended daily intake (RDI) with “excellent” and “good” source of identification. Leg Cutlet

Shoulder Blade Chop

Nutrient, mg/100 g

RDIa

Content

% DVbc

C

Vitamin Vitamin Vitamin Vitamin Vitamin Vitamin

1.5 1.7 20.0 10.0 2.0 6.0

0.09 0.47 10.10 0.65 0.76 2.08

6.0 27.6d 50.5d 6.5 38.1d 34.7d

0.11 0.48 5.14 0.44 1.18 3.66

B1, mg B2, mg B3, mg B5, mg B6, mg B12 μg

C Content

Loin Chop

Ground Veal3

Osso Buco Foreshank

% DVb

Content

% DVb

Content

% DVb

Content

% DVb

7.3 28.2d 25.7d 4.4 59.0d 61.0d

0.07 0.33 7.49 0.55 0.69 2.89

4.7 19.4e 37.5d 5.5 34.6d 48.2d

0.08 0.35 3.77 0.48 0.18 1.88

5.3 20.6d 18.9d 4.8 8.9 31.3d

0.09 0.43 7.90 0.51 0.89 3.53

6.0 25.3d 39.5d 5.1 44.4d 58.8d

a Dietary Reference Intakes (DRI) for Recommended Dietary Intakes (RDI) and dietary allowances (RDA) is the daily intake level of a nutrient that is considered to be sufficient to meet the requirements of 97–98% of healthy individuals in the United States calculated to % Daily Value (DV) for adult men and women. b % DV: Percent Daily Value. The % DV is based on a 2000 kcal/day intake and is calculated as the average % DV across all cuts from RDI (US-FDA, 2013). c Cooked separable lean was used in the assays to provide these results with the exception of ground veal, wherein the nature of the product contains both lean and fat. Data resulted from a single, national composite of all cuts of raw or cooked preparation from all suppliers. d Percentage qualifies the cut to be labeled as an “excellent source” of the vitamin, providing over 20% of the RDI. e Percentage qualifies the cut to be labeled as a “good source” of the vitamin, providing between 10 and 19% of the RDI.

only from cooked veal cuts in this study could potentially be labeled as an “excellent” source of protein and phosphorus. Leg cutlets, osso buco foreshanks, and shoulder-blade chops could qualify as excellent sources of zinc, while loin chops and ground veal could qualify as “good” sources of zinc. Osso buco foreshanks are the only cut that could provide enough iron to qualify as a “good” source. Leg cutlets could contribute a “good” source of potassium. Leg cutlets, shoulder blade chops, and ground veal could provide serve as “excellent” sources of copper, while loin chops and osso buco foreshanks could provide a “good” source of copper. Acheson et al. (2015) reported that many beef cuts can qualify as a “good” source of riboflavin (B2), and an “excellent” source of niacin (B3), vitamin B6 and vitamin B12. In comparison, the current study suggests that veal leg cutlets, shoulder blade chops, osso buco foreshanks, and ground veal could qualify as “excellent” sources of vitamin B2 (riboflavin), and veal loin chops could serve as a “good source.” All veal cuts potentially qualify as “excellent sources” of vitamin B3

These data are intended for use in updating current nutrient information. These data should not be used for clinical treatment or therapeutic treatment of any deficiency or to treat any aspect of malnutrition. Additionally, the nutrient concentration of the whole cut (lean, external fat and seam fat) may disqualify any labeling claim discussed on a separable lean only basis. This labeling claim discussion is not sanctioned or approved by USDA-NDL; any discussion of labeling claims within is based on identifying veal cuts that may potentially qualify for additional labeling claims. Formal regulatory label approval would be required prior to a supplier being allowed to make a nutrient claim. Based on criteria from the USDA Food Safety Inspection Service (USDA-FSIS) for extra labeling claims described previously, separable lean only from veal shoulder blade chops potentially qualify for “lean” labeling claims. Veal cuts that could qualify for “extra lean” and “HeartCheck” labeling claims include the following: leg cutlets, loin chops, and osso buco foreshanks. Based on these criteria, 100-g separable lean

Table 10 Comparison of Vitamin D of separable lean from raw veal cuts and ground veal to other Vitamin D concentration in other known foods from SR-26. Veal Data

USDA-ARS Standard Reference 26 Data

Raw Leg Cutleta

Raw Loin Roasta

Raw Ground Veala

Veal Baby foodb

Beef Porterhouse Steakc

Ground Beefd

Ground Turkeye

Fortified Milkf

Canned Tunag

Whole Eggh

0.58 23.0i

1.19 47.6i

1.28 51.2i

– –

0.10 4i

0.10 4i

– –

– –

2.00 80i

2.00 80i

– –

– –

– –

0.7 28.0i

0.1 4.0i

0.1 4.0i

0.4 16.0i

1.2 48.0i

2.0 80.0i

2.0 80.0i

25-Hydroxy D μg IUi

0.40 16.0i

0.35 14.0i

0.59 24.0i

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

– –

Total Vitamin D μg IUi

0.98 39i

1.54 62i

1.87 75i

0.65 26i

0.08 3i

0.08 3i

0.35 14i

1.23 49i

2.00 80i

2.05 82i

Units/100 g Tissue Vitamin D3 μg IUi D2 + D3a μg IUi

a Veal data results for Vitamin D2 were < 0.200 μg; these data are not reported in this table as exact values were below the level of quantification. Data resulted from a single, national composite of all cuts of raw or cooked preparation from all suppliers. b USDA database number 03005: Baby food, meat, veal, strained. c USDA database number 13231: Beef, short loin, porterhouse steak, separable lean only, trimmed to 1/8″ fat, choice, raw. d USDA database number 23567: Beef, ground, 85% lean meat, 15% fat, raw. e USDA database number 05668: Ground turkey, 85% lean, 15% fat, raw. f USDA database number 01079: Milk, reduced fat, fluid, 2%, milkfat, with added Vitamin A and Vitamin D. g USDA database number 15126: Fish, tuna, white, canned in water, drained solids. h USDA database number 01123: Egg, whole, raw, fresh. i Data are converted based on reported data from analysis. Conversion of units is on a 1 μg/40 IU basis as used by USDA Nutrient Database Laboratory, SR-26 documentation (USDA ARS).

29

Meat Science 148 (2019) 19–31

C.C. Perham et al.

(niacin) and vitamin B12. Ground veal can qualify as a “good source” of vitamin D. However, it is important to note that as described previously, cuts potentially meeting labeling claim criteria may be disqualified after calculating nutrient information on an entire cut basis (nutrient data from separable lean, external fat, and seam fat).

Dilzer, A., & Park, Y. (2012). Implication of Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA) in Human Health. Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition, 52, 488–513. https://doi.org/ 10.1080/10408398.2010.501409. Dinh, T. T. N., Blanton, J. R., Brooks, J. C., Miller, M. F., & Thompson, L. D. (2008). A simplified method for cholesterol determination in meat and meat products. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 21, 306–314. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2008. 02.001. Engeseth, N. J., & Gray, J. I. (1994). Cholesterol oxidation in muscle-tissue. Meat Science, 36, 309–320. https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-1740(94)90128-7. Engeseth, N. J., Gray, J. I., Booren, A. M., & Asghar, A. (1993). Improved oxidative stability of veal lipids and cholesterol through dietary vitamin-E supplementation. Meat Science, 35, 1–15. Faustman, C., Yin, M. C., & Nadeau, D. B. (1992). Color stability, lipid stability, and nutrient composition of red and white veal. Journal of Food Science, 57, 302. https:// doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1992.tb05481.x. Folch, J., Lees, M., & Sloane Stanley, G. (1957). A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipids from animal tissues. Journal of Biological Chemistry, 226, 497–509. Foo, L., Zhang, Q., Zhu, K., Ma, G., Trube, A., Greenfield, H., & Fraser, D. (2009). Relationship between vitamin D status, body composition and physical exercise of adolescent girls in Beijing. Osteoporosis International, 20, 417–425. Heaney, R. P., Armas, L. A., Shary, J. R., Bell, N. H., Binkley, N., & Hollis, B. W. (2008). 25-Hydroxylation of vitamin D3: Relation to circulating vitamin D3 under various input conditions. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 87, 1738–1742. Hoelscher, L., Savell, J., Smith, S., & Cross, H. (1988). Subcellular distribution of cholesterol within muscle and adipose tissues of beef loin steaks. Journal of Food Science, 53, 718–722. Huang, M., Laluzerne, P., Winters, D., & Sullivan, D. (2009). Measurement of vitamin D in foods and nutritional supplements by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Journal of AOAC International, 92, 1327–1335. IFICF. (2009). Food and health survey: Consumer attitudes toward food, Nutrition, and health. (http://www.foodinsight.org/Resources/Detail.aspx?topic=2009_Food_ Health_Survey_C onsumer_Attitudes_toward_food_Nutrition_and_health. Accessed 9 February, 2014). Jones, O., Savell, J., & Cross, H. (1992). Effects of fat trim on the composition of beef retail cuts–3. Cooking yields and fat retention of the separable lean. Journal of Muscle Foods, 3, 73–81. Koc, H., Mar, M. H., Ranasinghe, A., Swenberg, J. A., & Zeisel, S. H. (2002). Quantitation of choline and its metabolites in tissues and foods by liquid chromatography/electrospray ionization-isotope dilution mass spectrometry. Analytical Chemistry, 74, 4734–4740. https://doi.org/10.1021/ac025624x. Kris-Etherton, P. M., & Yu, S. (1997). Individual fatty acid effects on plasma lipids and lipoproteins: Human studies. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 65, 1628S–1644S. Luchak, G. L., Miller, R. K., Belk, K. E., Hale, D. S., Michaelsen, S. A., Johnson, D. D., ... Savell, J. W. (1998). Determination of sensory, chemical and cooking characteristics of retail beef cuts differing in intramuscular and external fat. Meat Science, 50, 55–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(98)00016-3. Martin, J. N., Brooks, J. C., Thompson, L. D., Savell, J. W., Harris, K. B., May, L. L., ... Leheska, J. L. (2013). Nutrient database improvement project: The influence of USDA quality and yield grade on the separable components and proximate composition of raw and cooked retail cuts from the beef rib and plate. Meat Science, 95, 486–494. Miltenburg, G. A. J., Wensing, T., Smulders, F. J. M., & Breukink, H. J. (1992). Relationship between blood hemoglobin, plasma and tissue iron, muscle heme pigment, and carcass color of veal. Journal of Animal Science, 70, 2766–2772. Montgomery, R. (2008). NIST standard reference material 1546 meat homogenate. SRM Spotlight. NCBA. (2014a). Lean Matters. (http://www.beefnutrition.org/cmdocs/beefnutrition/ updated%20 materials /lean%20beef/final_lean%20matters.pdf. Accessed September, 2016). NCBA. (2014b). Veal Production. Veal Food Service. (http://www.vealfoodservice.com/ production.aspx. Accessed January, 2014). Njeru, C. A., McDowell, L. R., Shireman, R. M., Wilkinson, N. S., Rojas, L. X., & Williams, S. N. (1995). Assessment of vitamin-E nutritional-status in yearling beef heifers. Journal of Animal Science, 73, 1440–1448. North American Meat Processors Association (2010). The Meat Buyer's Guide (6th ed.). Reston, VA: North American Meat Processors Association (Chapter 3). Ono, K., Berry, B. W., & Douglass, L. W. (1986). Nutrient composition of some fresh and cooked retail cuts of veal. Journal of Food Science, 51, 1352–1357. https://doi.org/10. 1111/j.1365-2621.1986.tb13120.x. Park, P. W., & Goins, R. E. (1994). In-situ preparation of fatty-acid methyl-esters for analysis of fatty-acid composition in foods. Journal of Food Science, 59, 1262–1266. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1994.tb14691.x. Phillips, K. M., Ruggio, D. M., Howe, J. C., Leheska, J. M., Smith, S. B., Engle, T., ... Conley, N. A. (2010). Preparation and characterization of control materials for the analysis of conjugated linoleic acid and trans-vaccenic acid in beef. Food Research International. 43, 2253–2261. Smith, A. M., Harris, K. B., Haneklaus, A. N., & Savell, J. W. (2011). Proximate composition and energy concentration of beef steaks as influenced by USDA quality grade and degree of doneness. Meat Science, 89, 228–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. meatsci.2011.04.027. Swize, S. S., Harris, K. B., Savell, J., & Cross, H. (1992). Cholesterol concentration of lean and fat from beef, pork, and lamb cuts. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 5, 160–167. Tang, X. Y., Cronin, D. A., & Brunton, N. P. (2006). A simplified approach to the determination of thiamine and riboflavin in meats using reverse phase HPLC. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 19, 831–837. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2005.12.

4. Conclusions Data resulting from this study, released in SR-27 (USDA-ARS Nutrient Database for Standard Reference or SR), provide current nutrient information for veal such as establishing concentration of choline, which were previously unavailable in the database. This study provides valuable nutrient information, but also establishes the need for future research to obtain analytical samples in order to expand the data available in the USDA Food Composition Database. Data from this study have expanded the identification of fatty acid profiles among veal. These data suggest that the majority of fatty acids in veal cuts are polyunsaturated, monounsaturated, stearic, and conjugated linoleic acids, which are accepted as being beneficial or having a neutral effect on health. These data also provide baseline data for vitamin D and 25hydroxy-vitamin D concentration in veal. These data also suggest that cholesterol concentration numerically decreased in veal cuts in this study, compared to previous data. Accessing USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference Release 27 will provide consumers, producers, nutritionists, and the general public to current nutritional information for veal prepared with common cookery methods. Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank Janet M. Roseland, Kristine Y. Patterson, and Quynhanh V. Nguyen for their contribution during the quality control process of these data and their review of this manuscript. Their contribution to this work is very much appreciated. References Abboud, M., Puglisi, D. A., Davies, B. N., Rybchyn, M., Whitehead, N. P., Brock, K. E., ... Mason, R. S. (2013). Evidence for a specific uptake and retention mechanism for 25hydroxyvitamin D (25OHD) in skeletal muscle cells. Endocrinology, 154, 3022–3030. https://doi.org/10.1210/en.2012-2245. Acheson, R. J., Woerner, D. R., Martin, J. N., Belk, K. E., Engle, T. E., Brown, T. R., ... McNeill, S. H. (2015). Nutrient database improvement project: Separable components and proximate composition of raw and cooked retail cuts from the beef loin and round. Meat Science, 110, 236–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.06.001. AHA. (2014). Heart-Check Food Certification Program Nutrition Requirements. American Heart Assocaition https://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/ NutritionCenter/ HeartSmartShoppi nH/Heart-Check-Food-Certification-ProgramNutritionRequirements _UCM_300914_Article.jsp. (Accessed February, 2014)). Ahuja, J. K. C., Moshfegh, A. J., Holden, J. M., & Harris, E. (2013). USDA food and nutrient databases provide the infrastructure for food and nutrition research, policy, and practice. Journal of Nutrition, 143, 241s–249s. https://doi.org/10.3945/jn.112. 170043. Alasnier, C., Remignon, H., & Gandemer, G. (1996). Lipid characteristics associated with oxidative and glycolytic fibres in rabbit muscles. Meat Science, 43, 213–224. https:// doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(96)00015-0. AOAC International (1995). Official methods of analysis (16th Ed). Arlington, VA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists. AOAC International (2005). Official methods of analysis (17th Ed). Arlington, VA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists. AOAC International (2006). Official methods of analysis (18th Ed). Arlington, VA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists. AOAC International (2011). Official methods of analysis (19th Ed). Arlington, VA: Association of Official Analytical Chemists. AVA (2011). Veal FAQ. American Veal Associationhttp://www.americanveal.com/forconsumers/veal-frequently-asked-questions/, Accessed date: December 2013. Bilodeau, L., Dufresne, G., Deeks, J., Clément, G., Bertrand, J., Turcotte, S., ... Fouquet, A. (2011). Determination of vitamin D 3 and 25-hydroxyvitamin D 3 in foodstuffs by HPLC UV-DAD and LC–MS/MS. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 24, 441–448. Chizzolini, R., Zanardi, E., Dorigoni, V., & Ghidini, S. (1999). Calorific value and cholesterol concentration of normal and low-fat meat and meat products. Trends in Food Science & Technology, 10, 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0924-2244(99) 00034-5. Clements, M. R., & Fraser, D. R. (1988). Vitamin D supply to the rat fetus and neonate. Journal of Clinical Investigation, 81, 1768.

30

Meat Science 148 (2019) 19–31

C.C. Perham et al.

Release 28 Version Current. USDA-FSIS (2010). 9 CFR 317.312 - Reference Amounts Customarily Consumed Per Eating Occasion. USDA-FSIS (2013). Title 9 Code of Federal Regulation Regarding Nutrition Labeling. US-FDA. (2013). Guidance for industry: a food labeling guide 14. Appendix F: calculate the percent daily value for the appropriate Nutrients). (http://www fdagov/Food/ Guidance Regulation/GuidanceDocumentsRegulatory Information/ LabelingNutrition/ucm064928 htm. Accessed November 2016). Wahrmund-Wyle, J. L., Harris, K. B., & Savell, J. W. (2000). Beef retail cut composition: 2. Proximate analysis. Journal of Food Composition and Analysis, 13, 243–251. West, S. E., Harris, K. B., Haneklaus, A. N., Savell, J. W., Thompson, L. D., Brooks, J. C., ... Patterson, K. (2014). Nutrient database improvement project: The influence of USDA quality and yield grade on the separable components and proximate composition of raw and cooked retail cuts from the beef chuck. Meat Science, 97, 558–567.

013. USDA and USDHHS (2015). Dietary guidelines for Americans 2015–2020 (8th ed.). Washington, D.C: US Government Printing Office. USDA-ARS. (2013). USDA Compiling Food Composition Data for over 115 years. Nutrient Database Laboratory (http://www.ars.usda.gov/Aboutus/docs.htm?docid=9418. Accessed. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service (2013b). USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 26. Nutrient Data Laboratory Home Page. http://www.ars.usda.gov/ba/bhnrc/ndl (Accessed). USDA-ARS (2016a). USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 11. Release 28 Version Current. USDA-ARS (2016b). USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 12. Release 28 Version Current. USDA-ARS (2016c). USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 26.

31