<%BANNER%>

Development and Evaluation of Raw and Pre-Cooked Vacuum Packaged Goat Meat Products

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021469/00001

Material Information

Title: Development and Evaluation of Raw and Pre-Cooked Vacuum Packaged Goat Meat Products
Physical Description: 1 online resource (75 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Djeri, Noufoh
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: cooked, development, evaluation, goat, meat, packaged, pre, raw, vacuum
Animal Sciences -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Animal Sciences thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Production of value added raw and heat and serve goat meat products could increase demand, consumption, acceptability, and marketability of goat meat. The objectives of this study were to develop and evaluate proximate composition, pH, sensory and microbiological characteristics of refrigerated value-added vacuum packaged raw, and heat and serve goat rib products. Four goat rib formulations were evaluated for each product. The formulations were evaluated for each product. The formulations included control (goat ribs, no additives), goat ribs in apple cider vinegar marinade, goat ribs with external only spice rub, and goat ribs in apple cider vinegar plus external spice rub. After formulation, all goat ribs are vacuum packaged and stored at 4 plus or minus 1oC for 21 days (raw goat rib products), and 42 days (heat and serve goat rib products). The products were analyzed for proximate composition, pH, microbiology (fecal coliforms, aerobic plate counts, psychrotroph counts, anaerobic plate counts), cost analysis for both products. Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances and lactic acid bacteria analysis were conducted for the heat and serve products only. Trained and consumer panelists evaluation were performed. Overall tenderness and goat flavor intensity was evaluated for both products (raw and heat and serve goat ribs). Consumer panelists evaluated goat flavor intensity, overall flavor, texture, overall acceptance, and the purchase intent as sensory characteristics. The trained panelists found differences among the four treatments regarding overall tenderness (vacuum packaged raw goat ribs). Overall tenderness varied from slightly tender to moderately tender. The ribs were rated slightly tender, and the marinated- spice rub ribs were rated moderately tender. The pH values varied between 5.79 and 6.40. pH values for treatments with goat ribs plus marinade and goat ribs plus marinade with externally applied spice rub were significantly lower (P < 0.05) than values for control, and goat ribs plus externally applied spice rub. Moisture values varied between 65.37% and 67.64% and were not significantly different between treatments. No significant increase (P > 0.05) in aerobic plate counts was revealed over time, through 21 days storage, for the goat ribs that were marinated or marinated and rubbed with spice. A similar trend was observed for psychrotrophic microorganisms. The addition of marinade with and without the spice rub resulted in significantly lower (P > 0.05) anaerobic counts.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Noufoh Djeri.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Williams, Sally K.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021469:00001

Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/UFE0021469/00001

Material Information

Title: Development and Evaluation of Raw and Pre-Cooked Vacuum Packaged Goat Meat Products
Physical Description: 1 online resource (75 p.)
Language: english
Creator: Djeri, Noufoh
Publisher: University of Florida
Place of Publication: Gainesville, Fla.
Publication Date: 2007

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords: cooked, development, evaluation, goat, meat, packaged, pre, raw, vacuum
Animal Sciences -- Dissertations, Academic -- UF
Genre: Animal Sciences thesis, M.S.
bibliography   ( marcgt )
theses   ( marcgt )
government publication (state, provincial, terriorial, dependent)   ( marcgt )
born-digital   ( sobekcm )
Electronic Thesis or Dissertation

Notes

Abstract: Production of value added raw and heat and serve goat meat products could increase demand, consumption, acceptability, and marketability of goat meat. The objectives of this study were to develop and evaluate proximate composition, pH, sensory and microbiological characteristics of refrigerated value-added vacuum packaged raw, and heat and serve goat rib products. Four goat rib formulations were evaluated for each product. The formulations were evaluated for each product. The formulations included control (goat ribs, no additives), goat ribs in apple cider vinegar marinade, goat ribs with external only spice rub, and goat ribs in apple cider vinegar plus external spice rub. After formulation, all goat ribs are vacuum packaged and stored at 4 plus or minus 1oC for 21 days (raw goat rib products), and 42 days (heat and serve goat rib products). The products were analyzed for proximate composition, pH, microbiology (fecal coliforms, aerobic plate counts, psychrotroph counts, anaerobic plate counts), cost analysis for both products. Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances and lactic acid bacteria analysis were conducted for the heat and serve products only. Trained and consumer panelists evaluation were performed. Overall tenderness and goat flavor intensity was evaluated for both products (raw and heat and serve goat ribs). Consumer panelists evaluated goat flavor intensity, overall flavor, texture, overall acceptance, and the purchase intent as sensory characteristics. The trained panelists found differences among the four treatments regarding overall tenderness (vacuum packaged raw goat ribs). Overall tenderness varied from slightly tender to moderately tender. The ribs were rated slightly tender, and the marinated- spice rub ribs were rated moderately tender. The pH values varied between 5.79 and 6.40. pH values for treatments with goat ribs plus marinade and goat ribs plus marinade with externally applied spice rub were significantly lower (P < 0.05) than values for control, and goat ribs plus externally applied spice rub. Moisture values varied between 65.37% and 67.64% and were not significantly different between treatments. No significant increase (P > 0.05) in aerobic plate counts was revealed over time, through 21 days storage, for the goat ribs that were marinated or marinated and rubbed with spice. A similar trend was observed for psychrotrophic microorganisms. The addition of marinade with and without the spice rub resulted in significantly lower (P > 0.05) anaerobic counts.
General Note: In the series University of Florida Digital Collections.
General Note: Includes vita.
Bibliography: Includes bibliographical references.
Source of Description: Description based on online resource; title from PDF title page.
Source of Description: This bibliographic record is available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication. The University of Florida Libraries, as creator of this bibliographic record, has waived all rights to it worldwide under copyright law, including all related and neighboring rights, to the extent allowed by law.
Statement of Responsibility: by Noufoh Djeri.
Thesis: Thesis (M.S.)--University of Florida, 2007.
Local: Adviser: Williams, Sally K.

Record Information

Source Institution: UFRGP
Rights Management: Applicable rights reserved.
Classification: lcc - LD1780 2007
System ID: UFE0021469:00001


This item has the following downloads:


Full Text





DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF RAW AND PRE-COOKED VACUUM
PACKAGED GOAT MEAT PRODUCTS
























By

NOUFOH DJERI


A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL
OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT
OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF
MASTER OF SCIENCE

UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA

2007

































2007 Noufoh Djeri









ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The author wishes to show her gratitude to Dr. Sally K. Williams, her supervisory

committee chairperson for opportunity, guidance, and support. She also extends her gratitude to

the other committee members, Dr. Dwain Johnson and Dr. Ray Mobley, for their collaboration

and advice. She is grateful to the Florida A&M University Cooperative Extension and Outreach

Programs for their financial support.

The author also wishes to extend her appreciation to Dr. Keawin Caron Sarjeant for his

friendship, support, and encouragement. To the employees of the Meat Science laboratory, and

fellow graduate students, and Tyrell Kahan, she offers recognition for the assistance provided.

Appreciation and love are expressed to Koffi and Amoye Dj eri, the author's parents, and

to her siblings Ikpindi, Gbati, and Adja Djeri for their constant support. She thanks Yvette Zie-

Bonzongo for her friendship, and motherly advice. She wishes lastly to thank God for his love

and guidance.









TABLE OF CONTENTS
page

A CK N O W LED G M EN TS ................................................................. ........... ............. 3

LIST OF TABLES .......... .... ..... ............. .......................................... 6

ABSTRAC T ..........................................................................................

CHAPTER

1 INTRODUCTION ............... .......................................................... 10

2 LITER A TU RE REV IEW ...................................... ..................... .......................... ..11

M e at G o a ts .............................................................. ................................................1 1
A v ailability and D em and .................................. .... .................................. ..... ............ 12
Nutritional Comparison of Meat Goats and Red Meat..................................... .................14
M icrobiology of G oat M eat ................................................................................. .......... 16
P reduction of M eat G oats ............................................................................ ........... .......... 17
Marketing of Goat Meat ................. .... .............................. 19
A acceptability of G oat M eat .......................................................................... ....................20
V alue-added Product Technology .............................................................. ....................21
Packaging Systems for Value-added Goat Products ................................... .................25

3 M A TER IA L S A N D M ETH O D S ................................................................ .....................28

Phase 1: Formulation of Marinade and Topical Spice Rub ...............................................28
S am p le P rep aration ......... ...... .................................................................. ....... ............... 2 8
Sam ple T reatm ent.......... .. ..... .. .................. ... ...... ...... .... ..... ...... ............. .... 29
Preparation of the Marinate and Spice Rub for application to the Goat Loin Chops .............29
Phase 2: Production and Evaluation of Vacuum packaged Raw Goat Ribs.........................30
S am p le P rep aratio n ............................. ............................................................... .. 3 0
Sam ple T reatm ent................. ........................................ ...... ................... ............ .. 30
M icrobiological A analysis and pH ......................................................... ............... 31
Sensory Evaluation .......... ................ ........................... ....... 32
P roxim ate A naly sis.......... ................................................................................. ...... 33
C o st A n a ly sis ............................................................................................................. 3 4
Statistical A naly sis ............... ....................................................................34
Phase 3: Production and Evaluation of Cook-in-Bag Heat and Serve Barbecue Goat
R ib s ................ ....................................................................... 3 4
S am ple P rep aration ......... ........................................................................ ........ ......... .. 34
Sam ple T reatm ent................. .......................................... .. .............. ..... ... ..35
M icrobiological A analysis and pH ......................................................... ............... 36
Sensory P anel A analysis ........................ .. .. ....................... .. ...... .... ...........37
Consum er Sensory Panel A nalysis............................................ ........... ............... 39
P roxim ate A naly sis.......... ........................................................................ .......... ...... 40
C ost A analysis ...............4.......................40


4









Statistical A analysis ................. .... .... ....... ....... .... ..... .. 40
Thiobarbituric Acid Reactive Substances Analysis ................................ ............... 41

4 RESULTS AND D ISCU SSION .................................................. ............................... 44

Marinated Vacuum Packaged Raw Goat Ribs refrigerated for 21 days at 4 1C................44
M icrobiological A naly sis ........................................................................ .................. 44
F e c al c o lifo rm s .................................................................. ...............................4 4
Aerobic plate counts .................. ............................ ........ ................. 44
P sychrotroph counts .............................. ......................... ... ...... .... ..... ...... 45
Anaerobic plate counts ........................... ......... ......................... .....45
P ro du ct A n aly sis............................. ....................................................... ............... 4 6
T he pH analy sis .................................................. ................. 46
P roxim ate analy sis........... ................................................................ .... .... .... .. 46
C o st an aly sis ................................................... ................ 4 7
Trained Sensory Evaluation ........................ ...................... ... ... .. ...............47
Marinated Vacuum Packaged Heat and Serve Goat Ribs refrigerated for 42 days at 4
C ...........................................................................49
M icrobiological A naly sis ........................................................................ .................. 49
Aerobic plate counts ....... ...... ........... ...... .............. .. ...................... .. 49
P sychrotroph counts .............................. ......................... ... ...... .... ..... ...... 49
A naerobic counts ........ .... ........................... ........ ........ ......... 50
Lactic Acid Bacteria counts .................................. .....................................50
Spice blend analysis ................. ......... .. ..... .... ....... ............. 51
Product A nalysis.................... ................................. ........ .. ...... ......... 51
The pH measurements ............. ....................... ........ .......... ....... ... 51
P roxim ate analy sis............ ................................................................ ... .... .... ... 52
C ost analy sis.................................................................................... ..... 52
Thiobarbituric A cid Reactive Substances ..................................... .................53
Trained Sensory Evaluation ................................................. ............................... 53
Consum er Sensory Evaluation ............................................... ............................. 54
Consum er Sensory Panel A nalysis............................................ ........... ............... 54

5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS......................................................... ............... 64

L IST O F R E F E R E N C E S ...................................................................................... ...................66

B IO G R A PH IC A L SK E T C H .............................................................................. .....................75









LIST OF TABLES


Table page

3-1 Weight and sex data for Spanish, Boer Crossbred Meat Goats purchased from Eunice
C o rn e liu s fa rm ............................................................................................................. 4 2

3-2 G oat M eat M marinade .......................... ...... ....................... .... .. ..... ........ 42

3-3 Marinade formulations for Goat meat ribs: Phase 1 ................... ......................... 43

3-4 Spice Blend Rub for Goat m eat ribs ............................................................................ 43

3-5 Weight and sex data for Spanish Boer Crossbred Meat Goats purchased from Norma
T illm an farm ..............................................................................4 3

4-1 Mean fecal coliform counts for vacuum packaged raw goat ribs stored at 4 1C for
2 1 d ay s ........................................................................................... 5 6

4-2 Mean aerobic plate counts for vacuum packaged raw goat ribs stored at 4 1C for
2 1 d ay s ........................................................................................... 5 6

4-3 Mean psychrotrophic counts on vacuum packaged raw goat ribs stored at 4 1C for
2 1 d ay s ........................................................................................... 5 6

4-4 Mean anaerobic counts on vacuum packaged raw goat ribs stored at 4 1C for 21
days ............................................. ..........................57

4-5 Mean pH values for vacuum packaged raw goat ribs stored at 4 1C for 21 days.........57

4-6 Proximate analysis for vacuum packaged raw goat ribs stored at 4 + 10C for 21 days.....57

4-7 Trained sensory evaluation scores on overall tenderness and goat flavor intensity for
vacuum packaged raw goat ribs stored at 4 10C for 21 days ............................... 58

4-8 Comparative cost analysis for 100 kg batches of vacuum packaged raw goat ribs...........58

4-9 Mean total aerobic counts for refrigerated vacuum-packaged heat and serve goat ribs
stored at 4 1 C for 42 days ......... ................. ......... ............................... ............... 59

4-10 Mean total psychrotrophs counts for refrigerated vacuum-packaged heat and serve
goat ribs stored at 4 1I C for 42 days .............. ................................... ............... 59

4-11 Mean total anaerobes counts for refrigerated vacuum-packaged heat and serve goat
ribs stored at 4 1 C for 42 days .......................... ................................. ............... 59

4-12 Mean total lactic acid bacteria counts for refrigerated vacuum-packaged heat and
serve goat ribs stored at 4 1IC for 42 days. ....................................... ............... 60









4-13 Mean pH values for refrigerated vacuum-packaged heat and serve goat ribs stored at
4 1IC for 42 days. ............................ ............ .......... ............ 60

4-14 Mean proximate values for refrigerated vacuum-packaged heat and serve goat ribs
stored at 4 1 C for 42 days ......... .................... ........ ..................... ............... 60

4-15 Comparative cost analysis for 100 kg batches of vacuum packaged heat and serve
g o at rib s............... .. ............ .............. ................................................ 6 1

4-16 Mean TBARS for refrigerated vacuum-packaged heat and serve goat ribs stored at 4
1C for 42 days. .......................................... ............................ .. 61

4-17 Mean trained sensory panel scores for goat flavor intensity and overall tenderness for
heat and serve goat ribs stored at 4 1C for 42 days.......... ......... ...............62

4-18 Age data for consumer sensory panelists evaluating goat ribs containing topical spice
rub only and a combination of marinade and spice rub and stored at 4 1C for 42
d ay s ........................................................... .................................... 6 2

4-19 Consumer sensory panel scores for evaluating goat ribs containing topical spice rub
only, and a combination of marinade and spice rub and stored at 4 1C for 42 days.....63









Abstract of Thesis Presented to the Graduate School
of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science

DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF RAW AND PRE-COOKED
VACUUM PACKAGED GOAT MEAT PRODUCTS

By

Noufoh Djeri

August 2007

Chair: Sally K. Williams
Major: Animal Sciences

Production of value added raw and heat and serve goat meat products could increase

demand, consumption, acceptability, and marketability of goat meat. The objectives of this study

were to develop and evaluate proximate composition, pH, sensory and microbiological

characteristics of refrigerated value-added vacuum packaged raw, and heat and serve goat rib

products. Four goat rib formulations were evaluated for each product. The formulations were

evaluated for each product. The formulations included control (goat ribs, no additives), goat ribs

in apple cider vinegar marinade, goat ribs with external only spice rub, and goat ribs in apple

cider vinegar plus external spice rub. After formulation, all goat ribs are vacuum packaged and

stored at 4 + 1C for 21 days (raw goat rib products), and 42 days (heat and serve goat rib

products). The products were analyzed for proximate composition, pH, microbiology (fecal

coliforms, aerobic plate counts, psychrotroph counts, anaerobic plate counts), cost analysis for

both products. Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances and lactic acid bacteria analysis were

conducted for the heat and serve products only. Trained and consumer panelists evaluation were

performed. Overall tenderness and goat flavor intensity was evaluated for both products (raw and

heat and serve goat ribs). Consumer panelists evaluated goat flavor intensity, overall flavor,

texture, overall acceptance, and the purchase intent as sensory characteristics.









The trained panelists found differences among the four treatments regarding overall

tenderness (vacuum packaged raw goat ribs). Overall tenderness varied from slightly tender to

moderately tender. The ribs were rated slightly tender, and the marinated- spice rub ribs were

rated moderately tender. The pH values varied between 5.79 and 6.40. pH values for treatments

with goat ribs plus marinade and goat ribs plus marinade with externally applied spice rub were

significantly lower (P < 0.05) than values for control, and goat ribs plus externally applied spice

rub. Moisture values varied between 65.37% and 67.64% and were not significantly different

between treatments. No significant increase (P > 0.05) in aerobic plate counts was revealed over

time, through 21 days storage, for the goat ribs that were marinated or marinated and rubbed with

spice. A similar trend was observed for psychrotrophic microorganisms. The addition of

marinade with and without the spice rub resulted in significantly lower (P > 0.05) anaerobic

counts.










CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Goat meat is one of the most consumed red meats worldwide, except for the United

States. According to the United States Department of Agriculture National Agricultural

Statistics Service (USDA NASS, 2006), the dairy, fiber, meat, 4-H, industrial, and biotech

goat inventory in the United States accounted for 2.93 million head in 2007, a boost of 5

percent when compared to 2006. In addition, meat and all other goats (meat, 4-H, industrial,

and biotech) accounted for 2.40 million head (5% increase from 2006). The demand for goat

meat is on the rise. This trend was extensively researched and documented in Florida

(Degner and Locascio, 1988, Johnson, 1989). The increase was mainly due to the growth of

ethnic populations and also the awareness of health conscious consumers of lower fat in

chevon compared to other red meats. In addition, consumers also demand convenient

products that will require the least time in the kitchen.

This research project had for goal to add value to goat meat by either vacuum

packaging a marinated raw goat rib product, or vacuum packaging a marinated heat and serve

goat product rib. The consumer will only have to bake and microwave or boil the value-

added goat rib products. The objectives of this study were to develop refrigerated value-

added vacuum packaged raw goat ribs, evaluate proximate, pH, sensory and microbiological

characteristics of four different formulations of raw goat ribs, develop a convenient and

marketable refrigerated vacuum packaged heat and serve goat meat rib product, and evaluate

proximate, pH, TBARS, sensory and microbiological characteristics of the heat and serve

products. Cost analysis was performed on the vacuum packaged raw and heat and serve goat

ribs to determine affordability for the consumers.









CHAPTER 2
LITERATURE REVIEW

Meat Goats

Capra aegagrus hircus (domestic goat) is a member of the bovine family and is closely

related to the sheep. Capra aegagrus hircus is one of the oldest domesticated species. Cave art

10,000 to 20,000 years ago indicates that goats were common and important (USDA FSIS,

2006). For thousands of years, they have been utilized for their milk, meat, hair, and skin all over

the world. Goat meat, called chevon (from the French word for the animal chevre), is said to be

similar in taste to veal or venison, depending on the age of the goat (Wikipedia Foundation,

2006).

Except for the United States, goat is one of the most consumed red meats worldwide.

However, it is being gradually introduced to consumers in the United States. Chevon has become

an established term for goat meat, originally applied to Angora goat meat and emanates from the

United States. Cabrito, a term derived from Spanish refers to goat kid, and is a delicacy in

Central and South Americas (Casey, 1992). Religious preferences, social customs and dietary

considerations shape the consumption patterns in the U.S.A. Immigrants from Asia and Africa

consume more goat meat than immigrants from Europe, especially developed Europe. (USDA,

APHIS, 2005). Native African-American and Caucasian populations tend to consume goat meat

on special occasions such as 4th of July, Easter, and Muslim holidays (Fraser, 2004). The

demand for goat meat peaks during Easter, according to the National Agricultural Statistics

Service (NASS) weekly data (Gipson, 1999). According to the Food and Agriculture

Organization (2003), goat population worldwide accounted for 743,374,300 head, with

440,291,400 produced by developing countries. The state of Florida produced 65, 000 meat and

other goats at the end of 2006. There was an increase of 8.33% in the Florida meat and other goat









production between 2005 and 2006 (USDA NASS, 2007). The patterns of consumption also vary

by ethnic and cultural preferences. Muslims and Jews require their meat slaughtered to religious

standards. Most prefer their meat fresh but many are willing to accept frozen imported meat

(Fraser, 2004). The weight and gender of the goat is determined by the holiday (Agricultural

Marketing Resource Center, 2006). Milk-fed kid weighing 13.60 kilograms is ideal for Easter,

while male or female kids weighing 27.21 kilograms are desired for Ramadan (Muslim holiday).

Weights between 20.41 and 54.43 kilograms are also accepted for Ramadan. Goats weighing

27.21 to 36.28 kilograms are marketed during Caribbean, and Chinese holiday, while the Latino

market desires a suckling kid (cabrito) weighing 9.07 to 15.87 kilograms. (Agricultural

Marketing Resource Center, 2006). There are various ways to prepare goat meat all around the

world. Goat meat could be stewed, baked, grilled, barbecued, minced, canned or transformed

into sausage, or jerky. (Wikipedia Foundation, 2007).

The value of goat meat in the United States is affected by the seasonal availability of live

goats, with the price per pound of goat meat being highest in late winter and early spring

(Pinkerton and McMillin, 2005). The highest price also coincide with religious and ethnic

holiday dates (Pinkerton, 2002) whereas the lowest prices are in the summer when the demand is

least and supply is greatest (Farris, 2003).

Availability and Demand

The growing meat goat industry has found a perfect environment in the Southeastern

United States. The demand is on the rise. According to the United States Department of

Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA NASS, 2006), the dairy, fiber, meat,

4-H, industrial, and biotech goat inventory in the United States accounted for 2.93 million head

in 2007, a boost of 5% when compared to 2006. In addition, meat goats used for 4-H, industrial,

and biotechnology accounted for 2.40 million head (5% increase from 2006). According to the









2002 USDA NASS Agricultural Census, Texas had the largest population of goats (47%)

reported in the U.S. inventory (USDA NASS, 2006). The IBISWorld (2005) industry report

revealed that there are four segments that form the goat industry: goat meat (meat processors),

mohair and cashmere (textile mills), breeding goats (other farmers), and goat milk sale. The

major segment is constituted by goats sold for slaughter purposes.

The goat industry is located in two major regions in the United States: South West region

(52.6% of the goat population), and the South East region (23.1% of the goat population)

(IBISWorld, 2005). According to Gipson (1999), the Southeastern United States is well

positioned geographically to supply goats to Florida and urban Northeast states (area of high

demand). Texas is by far the major state for goat farming (47.2% of all goats in the U.S.). Texas'

suitability to raising goats (mild dry climate, mountain terrain, low average cost of land) allowed

the production of meat, dairy, and fiber goats (IBISWorld, 2005)

In 1977, the first year that USDA began keeping statistics for goats slaughtered at federally

inspected plants, approximately 35,000 goats were slaughtered nationwide. Total federally

inspected goats have increased from 81,000 head in 1983 to 666,000 head in 2004. Growth has

been steady since 1983, with Texas and New Jersey leading the federally inspected slaughter

capacity (USDA APHIS, 2005). Between 1997 and 2002, the meat and other goats (4-H,

Industrial, Biotech) segments grew 87% in inventory, while the total growth in population for the

entire goat industry was 23% (USDA NASS, 2002). 4-H goats are used for youth education in

animal health, care and constructive self-image. Industrial goats are used for ground cover

management, as pack animals to control weeds and allow access in remote areas of wilderness.

Biotech goats are used for the production ofbiotechnological products (USDA APHIS, 2005).

Meat and other goats accounted for 51,500 head in 2005, and increased to 55,000 the following









year in the state of Florida (USDA NASS, 2006). USDA APHIS (2005) estimated the total goat

slaughter in 2003 to be 666 thousand head. Federally inspected goat slaughter has been

dominated by Texas (18%) and New Jersey (30%). In Florida (2004 fiscal year), 15,093 head of

goats were slaughtered in federally inspected facilities (USDA APHIS, 2005).

This increasing demand for goat meat was made known in a national benchmark study

funded by Winrock International (1986) in "Strategies for Expanding Goat Meat Production,

Processing, and Marketing in the Southeastern U.S.". This trend was extensively researched and

documented in Florida (Degner and Locascio, 1988, Johnson, 1989). The increase was mainly

due to the growth of ethnic populations and also the awareness of health conscious consumers of

lower fat in chevon compared to other red meats. The three largest goat consuming ethnic

populations are Hispanics, Muslims and the peoples from the Caribbean. The strongest demand

for goat meat is along the eastern coast, Southern California, Florida, Detroit, and the northeast

region stretching from Washington, D.C. to Boston (McKenzie-Jakes, 2004). The demand for

goat meat in the United States is concentrated in areas with ethnic populations that use goat as a

traditional staple (Hansen, 2003). Urban demographic growth is proportionally related to the

urban consumption of goat meat. However, because of low innovation, urban inhabitants prepare

goat meat with difficulty. The ability of manufacturers to process goats into products, and the

capability of the farmers to supply goats consistently influence the availability of products

(IBISWorld, 2005).

Nutritional Comparison of Meat Goats and Red Meat

Goat meat is a high quality protein source, and is considered red meat. A study conducted

by University of Florida and Florida Agricultural and Mechanical University (Johnson, 1995)

employed three meat goat breeds of six to eight months of age: Florida natives, Nubian x Florida

natives,and Spanish x Florida natives. There was no significant effect from the sex or the breed









type on carcass yield. Even though breed did not have an effect on fat-free yield, sex class did

influence fat-free lean deposition where intact male goat carcass had 3 percent more fat-free

muscle mass than castrated and female goat carcasess (Johnson, 1995). Breed type and sex class

affected the total fat deposition on the goat carcasses (Johnson, 1995; Mahgoub et al., 2004).

Colomer-Rocher et al. (1992) reported goat carcasses from intact males to have higher contents of

muscle and lower contents of fat than carcasses from females. A nutrient profile analysis of the

goat meat carcass composites suggested a similarity to chicken in total grams of fat, percent of

calories from fat, and cholesterol. Iron content was 2.2mg for broiled goat meat and beef, and

1.1 mg for chicken. (Johnson,1995).

Kids (goats under a year of age) are often slaughtered at 3 to 5 months of age and

weighing from 25 to 50 pounds. Kids do not store significant body fat until they are about a year

old. The meat of older goats is darker and less tender, but juicier and full of flavor when

compared to kids' meat.

Goat tend to have lower dressing percentage and different carcass proportions when

compared to sheep (Webb et al., 2005). Goat meat from Angora (no age) was found to be less

tender, have more residues, shear force resistance, collagen content than Boer goats (no age)

(Schonfeldt et al., 1993a,b). In contrast, Smith et al. (1978) found that loin chops and leg roasts

from Angora and Spanish goats from the same age had the same juiciness. He also suggested that

conformation and breed may have a consequence on the effect of age on meat properties. Low

conformation leg slices from yearling goats and kids were less tender than leg meat from kid

goats with medium or high conformation (Phelps et al., 1999). "Mestico" or hybrid goat age

varying from 175 to 310 days decreased organoleptic properties such as tenderness, appearance,

aroma, flavor, juiciness, and overall palatability (Madruga et al., 2000).









Sen et al. (2004) also reported that goat meat was less tender than sheep meat, although

juiciness, and overall palatability were not different. Casey et al. (2003) reported preferential

order in the deposition of adipose tissue in goat with visceral fat first, followed by intermuscular,

subcutaneous and intramuscular fat. The highly variable fat content is being influenced by

factors such as age, sex, nutrition, body weight growth rate, physiological condition, and

physical activity (Owen et al., 1978; Kirton, 1988).

Microbiology of Goat Meat

Meat is defined as "the part of the muscle of any cattle, sheep, swine, or goats which is

skeletal or which is found in the tongue, diaphragm, heart, or esophagus, with or without the

accompanying and overlying fat, and portions of bone (in bone-in product such as T-bone or

porterhouse steak), skin, sinew, nerve, and blood vessels which normally accompany the muscle

tissue and that are not separated from it in the process of dressing" (Code of Federal Regulations

9CFR301.2, 2006). It is animal tissues that are suitable for use as food and it includes processed

foods prepared from those tissues (Aberle et al., 2001). Meat and meat products are very

perishable. Deterioration begins soon after exsanguination, resulting in microbial, chemical and

physical changes. The initial microbial load plays a role in the determination of the food

product's shelf-life. Three major microorganisms found in meat are fungi, mold, and bacteria

(being a major source of contamination). The molds and yeast growing on meat are aerobic.

Bacteria thriving in meat could be aerobic, anaerobic or facultative. During refrigerated storage

some genera of bacteria found on meat and poultry are mainly Pseudomonas, Moraxella,

Psychrobacter and Acinetobacter on the surface, followed by Aeromonas, .\he'\ ull'//,

Micrococcus, Lactobacillus, Streptococcus, Leuconostoc, Pedicoccus, Flavobacterium, and

Proteus (Aberle et al., 2001). The process of freezing decreases the number of microorganisms

during storage. Species of the above genera can survive this process and resume growth









following thawing (Forrest et. al, 1975). Some additional organisms of concern associated with

meat in general are Salmonella, Escherichia coli, Campylobacterjejuni, Listeria monocytogenes,

Staphylococcus aureus (Romans et al., 1994). Srivastava et al. (1981) analyzed frozen goat meat

for microbes and toxin production by Bacillus cereus. No Salmonella, Staphylococci, yeast nor

mold was found. There was an increase in psychrophiles as a function of storage. A surprising

increase of mesophiles (Streptococci) was detected. Enterobacter sp., Escherichia coli,

Klebsiella sp. and Bacillus cereus were isolated from the frozen goat meat (Srivastava et al.,

1981; Sinha and Mandal, 1977). Cooked goat meat was then served to six human volunteers to

study toxin production. Fourteen hours after the ingestion of the meat, only one person

developed stomach ache, nausea and mild diarrhea. Those results support "in vivo" study

performed on mice (Srivastava et al., 1981).

Production of Meat Goats

Meat goat production is increasing because of the goat's economic value as efficient

converter of low quality forages into quality meat, milk, and hide products for specialty markets

(The Pennsylvania State University, 2000). Goats are also very efficient regarding the conversion

of browse pasture to lean tissue because of their inclination to browse on bushes, brushes, and

weeds (Small Farms Research Center Alabama A & M University, 2005). Casey (1988) and

Wheaton (1993) reported an average daily weight gain to be 300gm for lambs and 227 gm for

goats during pre-weaning period on grass with some supplementation.

There are around eleven breeds of goats raised within the U.S. for meat (USDA APHIS,

2005). Except for the South African Boer goat imported from New Zealand, there are no true

meat goat breeds in the U.S. (Luginbuhl, 1998; Pinkerton et al. 1991). Spanish goats are one of

the breeds that stand out as more specialized for meat production. The Spanish goat is originally

from Spain via Mexico to the U.S. It is now the predominant meat type goat found in Central









Texas around the Edwards Plateau. It has the ability to breed out of season and is an excellent

range animal. It has recently been bred intensively to improve meat characteristics (Luginbuhl,

2000). The Boer goat of South Africa owes its name to the Dutch word "boer" meaning "farm"

and was introduced to the United States in 1993 (Coffey, 2002; USDA APHIS, 2005). The

present Boer goat emerged in the 20th century, when South African farmers began breeding for a

meat goat with good conformation, high growth rate and fertility, short white hair and red

markings on the head and neck. Other types of goats bred for meat are Myotonic or "Fainting

goat", Nubian (dairy and meat), and Kiko (Luginbuhl, 1998).

Meat goat production requires following good husbandry practices in the areas of

sanitation, health, feed, water, and shelter. Female goats are referred to as "does", doelings", or

"nannies". Males are "bucks", "billies" or "bucklings". Castrated males are identified as wethers.

Young goats are called "kids". Goats adapt well to hot environments because of their small size

and higher ratio of body surface area to body weight. In addition, their ability to conserve body

water, their limited subcutaneous fat cover, and their hairy coats are good survival traits under

desert like conditions. Goats are inclined to forage or browse from the top of a plant downward.

Their plant diet is extremely varied and includes some species which are toxic or detrimental to

cattle and sheep. This makes them valuable for controlling noxious weeds and clearing brush and

undergrowth. They will seldom eat soiled food or water unless facing starvation (Wikipedia

Foundation, 2006).

Breeding occurs from September to November for spring kidding (Stanton, 2005). Goats

are seasonally polyestrous with estrous cycles every 20 to 21 days from July through January.

Tropical breeds of goats may cycle year-round. Goats reach sexual maturity at five to nine

months, but it is not recommended to breed them until they have reached 60 percent of their









adult weight, or one year of age. With proper nutrition and management, three kid crops every

two years are possible. An ideal management scheme would be to breed in February, then again

in September. A buck may breed 50 to 200 does in a single breeding season, but it is

recommended that three or four bucks be put with 100 does. Bucks should be changed often to

prevent inbreeding in the flock (at least every two years) (Alford et al., 1998). The gestation

period varies from 147 to 155 days, the average being 149 days, but five months on average.

Does generally deliver two kids averaging four to six pounds each with one or three kids not

uncommon. The best mating system consists of exposing the does during February and March,

removing them, and placing them with the males (bucks) in September, October.

Marketing of Goat Meat

A marketing channel describes the movement of a product or commodity from the site of

production to the place of consumption. It may include transportation, handling and storage,

ownership transfers, processing, and distribution (Pinkerton et al., 1991). Consumer demands are

met through different marketing channels that include: direct sales, wholesale and retail markets,

or restaurants, specialty markets (freezer market, ethnic/religious market, gourmet market).

Some ethnic or religious groups such as Africans and Muslims prefer to slaughter goats

themselves. Most consumers obtain their goat meat from wholesalers and retailers, who in turn

purchase their meat from USDA inspected processing facilities or importers. Goat meat is served

in ethnic restaurants but is a rare delicacy in mainstream restaurants (Fraser, 2004).

One of the greatest challenges to the meat goat industry is reaching mainstream

consumers rather than only ethnic groups. There are few places where goat meat is sold

wholesale or retail. Because of a lack of familiarity, goat is difficult to sell in supermarkets

because consumers lack cooking preparation knowledge (Alford et al., 1998). A promising

strategy to implement is to target the foodservice sector (restaurants). If this is to be done, it is









imperative to ensure a constant, high quality supply of goat meat at a stable price. Marketing

goat meat in restaurants, could also encourage consumers to purchase goat for home preparation

(Alford et al., 1998).

The percentage of fat in meat depends on many factors such as the animal specie, the

diet, the meat cut, the degree of trimming of fat, the cooking or processing technique (Jimenez-

Colmenero et al., 2001). The amount of cholesterol in lean red meat, where fat had been

trimmed, is low when compared to the amount produced by the human body each day (Swize et

al., 1992; Chizzolini et al., 1999; Jimenez-Colmenero et al., 2001).

Acceptability of Goat Meat

Individuals consume meat in order to obtain some satisfaction that is influenced by

psychological and sensory responses (product appearance, price, aroma, flavor, tenderness,

juiciness, nutritive value) (Aberle, 2001). Flavor has a great influence on the sensory quality of

muscle foods, consequently on its overall acceptability (Shahidi, 1994).

Smith et al. (1974) compared sensory characteristics of goat meat with meat from pork,

beef and lamb. Goat meat had the same juiciness, but less tenderness and less overall

satisfaction, when compared to pork, beef, and lamb at comparable maturity and fatness. Goat

meat has a distinct flavour and aroma when compared to lamb and muttons studies on chemical

composition and meat quality revealed that goat meat was not inferior to lamb (Schonfeldt et al.,

1993a, 1993b; Casey et al., 2003; Sheradin et al., 2003a, b; Webb et al., 2005). Smith et al.

(1974) reported that goat meat was not significantly different from beef or lamb in flavor

desirability when oven-baked rib or loin samples were evaluated by untrained panelists. Meat

that is cooked and then stored refrigerated is susceptible to oxidation of lipids and phospholipids,

known as warmed-over flavor (Cross et al., 1987). A major quality spoiler of stored foods is

attributed to off-odors and -flavors of oxidative rancidity (chemical change in an unsaturated









bond of a fat or oil). The cooking yield and shear of goat leg chops were similar for broiling and

microwaving, but broiled chevon chops were darker and lower in fat (James and Berry, 1997).

By observation, higher surface temperature in broiling may have been responsible for the

significantly darker surface color (the electric oven was pre-heated to 1910C, with the meat

products being cooked to an internal temperature of 75C). No significant difference was

observed in the shearing of the samples, suggesting no differences between broiled and

microwaved samples (James and Berry, 1997). Cooking losses were highest in leg cuts,

intermediate in shoulder/arm cuts, and lowest in loin/rib cuts (Kannan et al., 2001).

Goats and sheep belong to the family of Bovidae and the subfamily of Caprinae.

Extensive work has been done on sheep meat and its chemistry and flavor. Shahidi (1998)

determined that sheep meat has a inherent characteristic odor and flavor associated with it.

Hornstein and Crowe (1963) suggested that fat was responsible for the species flavor. (Brennand

and Lindsay, 1982) determined fatty tissues were the most significant source of mutton flavors.

Panelists were able to differentiate lamb from beef and from pork. In addition, Melton (1990)

determined that meat flavor is influenced by fatty acid composition. Jacobson and Koehler

(1963) named carbonyls as important contributors to mutton odor. Factors such as age, diet,

breed, and sex may also influence the odor and flavor of sheep or goat meat (Shahidi, 1994).

Flavor and odor can be masked by technologies such as marination, cooking, and curing. These

technologies can be combined and their use can add value to meat products.

Value-added Product Technology

Value-added is defined as adding economic value to a product by changing its current

place, time and from one set of characteristics to other characteristics that are more preferred in

the marketplace (Boland and Bosse, 2006). Adding value is the process of changing or

transforming a product from its original state to a more valuable state. Value-added refers to









products that have been changed in form, function, or grouping to increase their economic value

and/or consumption appeal (USDA, 2004). Consumer food trends include convenience

requirements, more meat, innovative dairy products, growth in ethnic foods and one-dish meals

which include sandwiches, bowls, or cups as the entrees (Sloan, 2003). Convenience means less

time for shopping, speed or ease of preparation, speed or ease of consumption, ready-to-eat or no

preparation, or portability (McMillin and Brock, 2005). Consumers often are willing to pay

higher prices for convenient versions of their favorite products (Information Resources Inc,

2002).

Value-added products are a means to provide convenience and economic profitability.

Primary processing operations include tenderization, grinding, flaking, freezing, case ready

fabrication and packaging, whereas examples of further processing are curing, smoking,

marinating, injection, emulsifying, forming, and cooking (Pearson and Gillette, 1996). Some

other additional processes include grinding, chopping, seasoning, heat treatment, water reduction

and modified atmosphere packaging. Value-added product areas also would include irradiated

products for microbial safety, precooked products for convenience, portioned and institutional

items for uniformity, and nutritionally enhanced meat for healthfulness (McMillin and Brock,

2005).

Goat meat is usually sold as a whole carcass or in primal cuts (Kannan et al., 2001) to

ethnic consumers (Degner and Locascio, 1988; Pinkerton, 2002). Adding value to goat meat

through production and processing practices will increase the price of the meat (McMillin and

Brock, 2005). The USDA Agricultural Marketing Service (AMS) Institutional Meat Purchase

Specifications (IMPS) for Fresh Goat Series 11 Meat illustrates five cutting styles targeting

institutional and retail buyers. The different cuts from the cutting styles consist of foreshank,









hindshank, neck, foresaddle, shoulder, outside shoulder, inside shoulder, rack, ribs, breast, back,

loin, sirloin, and legs. (USDA AMS, 2006).

According to McMillin and Brock (2005), the potential for value-added goat meat items

can be identified, but increasing the value to specific producers, processors, or consumers

requires identification and communication with the target consumers. There are opportunities for

direct marketing of live animals or meat to customers or increasing the availability of traditional

fresh raw chilled meat for the growing ethnic population.

Rhee et al. (2003) developed plain meat loaves and chili prepared with ground goat or

beef at 15% fat. Goat meat was differentiated from beef in samples containing the same amount

of fat by consumer panelists because of the distinct taste of goat meat. James and Berry (1997)

designed patties containing different percentages of chevon and beef. The most tender samples

evaluated by the consumer panelists contained a combination of both meat types. Panelists

(untrained and trained) found 20/80 chevon/ beef patties most flavorful, and the 100% chevon

patties less flavorful. These findings suggest that in making a ground product containing chevon,

a combination with beef will produce a desirable product for the consumers. Cosenza et al.

(2003) developed a cabrito smoked sausage using goat meat alone, and combinations with soy

protein concentrate. Fermented goat snack sticks were made using goat meat alone and in

combinations with soy protein concentrate to reduce cost (Cosenza, 2003). Trained panelists and

consumer panelists detected no differences between the products. All products were acceptable.

Gadiyaram and Kannan (2004) manufactured batches of chevon, beef, pork, and mixed-

meat sausages with no added fat under identical conditions using a commercial sausage

seasoning. Spanish goat carcasses, beef chuck, and pork leg cuts from different animals were

used. All sausages were prepared in a conventional oven to internal temperature of 75C. It was









suggested that chevon could be used to manufacture low fat sausages without influencing texture

(Gadiyaram and Kannan, 2004). Kahan et al. (2006) evaluated five marinated goat meat products

using apple cider vinegar, lime juice and water. The four different treatments were similar in

goat flavor intensity and tenderness. Panelists rated the goat formulated with the lime juice

marinade significantly lower in off-flavor when compared to the control meat without apple

cider vinegar or lime juice. The main goals of marination have been considered to be tenderizing,

flavoring, and enhancing the shelf life and safety of meat products (Bjorkroth, 2005). Meat

flavor is improved when vinegar, oils, or both, in combination with spices are used. Water is

chemically bound within the muscle tissue. Higher water holding capacity is equivalent to

juicier, and more palatable sensory perceptions. Additional benefits include flavor enhancement

through the addition of spices and flavorings (Sams, 2001).

Treatment of meat with spices and curing agent (nitrate, nitrite, sugar, sodium erythorbate,

and salt) has been known since the mid-1920s (Tompkins, 1986). Marination, a method to

increase shelf-life and improve flavor, texture and juiciness, is a process for infusing meat with

savory ingredients (Toledo, 2001). It is the process of soaking foods in a seasoned, often acidic

solution before cooking. "Marinate" may have originated from the Latin word "marine" and

means soaking or pickling in salt brine (Bjorkroth, 2005). According to Toledo (2001),

marination is a process for infusing meat with savory ingredients to improve flavor, texture and

juiciness. The whole objective of the marination process is to uniformly disperse the functional

ingredients throughout the muscle in the marinade. Marinades must be effectively incorporated

and retained in the muscle in order to impart the desired effects of tenderness, juiciness and

flavor impact in the cooked product. With time, this definition has been modified. In industrial

systems, marination is accomplished by injection, tumbling or massaging. It can also contain









herbs and spices (Toledo, 2001). Sodium Chloride (NaC1) and Calcium Chloride (CaC12) are

substances commonly used in meat technology and meat marination to help bind water.

According to Hamm (1960), Sodium Chloride moves the isoelectric point of meat proteins

towards lower pH values, enhancing its water binding properties. A similar effect can be

achieved by the addition of substances, which are capable of increasing pH value (phosphates,

carbonates) and by the application of food acids (lactic, citric, ascorbic, tartaric and acetic acids)

(Calhoun et al., 1996). The primary reason for using phosphates is to improve water-holding

capacity which is the amount of moisture a piece of meat can maintain. The water-holding

capacity varies with the muscle pH. Post-slaughter muscle pH drops from around 7.2 to between

5.3 to 5.7, right around the isoelectric point of the meat (about 5.4). In this state of neutral

charge, muscle fibers are very close together, squeezing out moisture and leaving no room for

added moisture. Adding positive or negative charges creates repulsion of the muscle fibers,

sometimes referred to as "protein swelling", that creates space in which water can be held

(Foster, 2004).

McKenna et al. (2003) investigated sheep and goat meat production and utilization. Lamb

loin chops were marinated by injection with water, cranberry juice, salt, black pepper- oleoresin,

onion- oleoresin, marjoram- oleoresin, and rosemary- oleoresin, and applying a topical butter

garlic spice rub (#144; A.C. Legg, Inc.). The chops were then packaged, retail displayed,

consumer evaluated, microbiologically tested, and evaluated for lipid oxidation. Marination

improved palatability characteristics of lamb chops and extended shelf life during retail display;

but consumers preferred the appearance of non-marinated chops to those that were marinated.

Packaging Systems for Value-added Goat Products

Packaging is a coordinated system to prepare food products for transport, distribution,

storage, retailing and consumption (Soroka, 2002). Its purpose is to protect, extend shelf-life,









provide convenience and communicate information. According to Rourke (2005), manufacturers

of cooked meat products select packaging for two major reasons: preservation of product quality

(appearance, flavor, odor and texture) and inhibition of microbial growth. In addition, customers

are demanding consumer-friendly packaging such as easy open, recloseable, dual-ovenable and

microwaveable. Mize and Kelly (2004) audited and reported the trends in fresh meat packaging

at the retail level. In 2002, 69% of the linear footage of the self-service meat case was occupied

by fresh meat and poultry. This figure declined to 63% in 2004, reflecting a growing conversion

of meat items to products with greater consumer convenience such as fully cooked entrees,

marinated meats, as well as hams and sausages. In 2004, 60% of the packages audited were case

ready, which increased from 49% in 2002. Although literature was available on specific

packaging systems for goat meat products, it will be expected that the majority of packages in

the category of value-added meat packaging were still in a flexible film, and vacuum sealed state

(Eilert, 2005). Fully cooked entrees are a category of products that have grown over the last five

years. The majority of these products are packaged and cooked in a flexible heat stable film, with

a variety of secondary packages around the product. Consumers are demanding foods with

greater convenience Meal kits category sales are expected to increase from $11 million in sales

(1998) to $50 million by 2008 (Eilert, 2005). Factors that contribute to this increase include the

number of young people with minimal cooking skills, employment and lifestyle that do not allow

time for meal preparation, the baby boom generation is reaching retirement age, and the

willingness to prepare complete meals is diminishing.

However, Food Saver bags are an example of a commercially available "cook-in bag".

Food Saver bags are patented therefore limited information is available on the properties of the

systems. These bags are made of polyethylene (a combination of high density, and low density),









one of the most versatile and economical polymers with low processing energy costs, and coated

with nylon for strength. High-density polyethylene (HDPE) is inexpensive, easily processed, and

a good moisture barrier. The film also has low oxygen-, hydrocarbon-, and flavor barrier

properties, a low softening point, and opacity (Soroka, 2002). Low-density polyethylene (LDPE)

and linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) are low cost, easy processibility, and good

moisture barriers similar to HDPE. LDPE and LLDPE have good heat sealability at temperatures

from 106C to 1120C. Instructions for microwaving, boiling are recommended for frozen foods.

Food Saver bags have a melting point of 127C. The packaging material consists of two sides:

one smooth, and one rough side. The smooth side allows a better seal, while the rough side

permits air to be channeled out during the vacuuming process. Packaging systems such as Food

Saver exist for consumer convenience.

Consumers demand for convenient foods steered the industry toward ready-to-eat, fully

cooked, or heat and serve products, and packaging plays an important role in maintaining shelf-

life.









CHAPTER 3
MATERIALS AND METHODS

This study was conducted in three phases. Phase 1 consisted of research and development

to determine the appropriate amount for the marinade and the spice blend ingredients. Phase 2

involved the production and evaluation of a value-added uncooked vacuum packaged marinated

goat meat product. Phase 3 involved the production and evaluation of a value-added heat and

serve vacuum packaged goat meat product.

Phase 1: Formulation of Marinade and Topical Spice Rub

Sample Preparation

Meat goats were purchased from a local producer in Jasper, Florida (Eunice Cornelius

farm) (Table 3-1). Among the eleven animals, were ten males (castrated by 3 weeks of age), and

one female. The animals weighed on average 28.78 kg. The animals were slaughtered, and

processed at the University of Florida Animal Sciences USDA inspected processing facility. The

carcasses were washed, rinsed with a lactic acid antimicrobial solution and chilled for 24 hours.

After the chilling process, the carcasses were fabricated into primal cuts: leg, loin, rack (ribs) and

shoulder. The ribs were cut according to the USDA Institutional Meat Purchase Specifications

(USDA AMS, 2006) for Fresh Goat, barbeque style (approved in October 2001). The ribs were

separated from the carcass by a straight cut posterior to the last rib on the posterior end. The neck

and the breast were removed. The ribs were split. All the meat was vacuum packaged and frozen

at -20C until used. Only the rib racks with loin muscle attached were used in this study. The

racks were cut into three equal longitudinal portions, vacuum packaged and frozen at -200C until

used (approximately 2 weeks).









Sample Treatment

Various ingredients were evaluated in an effort to develop a marinade (Table 3-2). In all

formulation, the goat meat samples were marinated for 1 hour in individual containers (30

minutes for each side of the loin chops) at 4 10C. Following marination of the loin chops, the

products were baked in a conventional oven (General Electric Model: JGRS14 Built-In Gas

Oven) at 1630C to an internal temperature of 740C using copper--constantan thermocouples

attached to a potentiometer. Goat meat formulation with or without 2.0% apple cider vinegar or

lime juice were prepared by sensory panel. Based on the results of this evaluation, the decision

was made to marinate with apple cider vinegar to limit the cost. (Recipe 1) (Table 3-3). Four

formulations were developed and consisted of Control or 1 (goat meat), 2 (goat meat +

marinade), 3 (goat meat + spice rub), and 4 (goat meat + marinade + spice rub). For each

formulation, the goat loin chops were placed in a vacuum tumbler, and tumbled for 25 minutes.

After tumbling, the product was either packaged immediately, or subjected to a topical spice

blend (Table 3-4) before packaging. The evaluation of the goat loin chops involved baking in a

conventional oven (General Electric Model: JGRS14 Built-In Gas Oven) at 1630C to an internal

temperature of 740C, and tasted by panelists in a formal sensory panel.

Preparation of the Marinate and Spice Rub for application to the Goat Loin Chops

Step 1: Spice rub preparation

1- Combine all ingredients in the spice rub formulation. Mix well.

Step 2: Preparation of marinade

1- Dissolve sodium tripolyphosphate in water.

2- Add salt and dissolve.

3- Add apple cider vinegar and blend well.

4- Place meat in tumbler.









5- Add marinade solution.

6- Vacuum tumble for 25 minutes.

Step 3: Application of spice rub

1- Manually apply spice rub on the outside of the loin chops uniformly.

Step 4: Cooking process

1- Preheat conventional electric oven to 1630C.

2- Insert thermocouples in the thickest portion of the loin chops.

3- Cook the meat to an internal temperature of 740C.

4- Remove the baked ribs from the oven and allowed to stand at room temperature for 30
minutes.

5- Vacuum package the meat in commercially available cooking bags, and store in walk-in
cooler.

Phase 2: Production and Evaluation of Vacuum packaged Raw Goat Ribs

Sample Preparation

Boer Crossbred Spanish meat goats (about 7 months old) were purchased from a local

producer from White Springs, Florida (Norma Tillman) (Table 3-5). Ten animals including eight

castrated males, and two females weighing on average 20.63 kg were utilized. The animals were

slaughtered, and processed at the University of Florida Animal Sciences USDA inspected

processing facility in the same manner as discussed in Phase One.

Sample Treatment

The frozen goat ribs were thawed for 18 2 hours in a 4 1IC walk-in cooler. The racks

from the goats were cut in three longitudinally proportional cuts, using an electric band saw

(Biro 44 Band Saw, The Biro Manufacturing Company, Marblehead, OH, 43440-2099). The rib

units were divided into four groups and combined with either 1) No treatment, control, 2) apple

cider vinegar only, 3) Spice rub only, and 4) Spice rub plus apple cider vinegar (Table 2). Except









for the control treatment and treatment 3 (spice rub only), the ribs were placed into a vacuum

tumbler (Lyco vacuum tumbler, model 40, Columbus, WI) along with water, salt, apple cider

vinegar, sodium tripolyphosphate, and tumbled for 25 minutes. After marination, the meat in

treatment 4 was coated with the spice rub. All meat was vacuum packaged in Cryovac B4770 9 x

18 (Simpsonville, SC) vacuum bags, and stored at 4 + 10C for 21 days. The specifications for the

Cryovac B4770 9 x 18 are 0.5- 0.6 g/100 in2/24 hrs@100F, 100% Relative Humidity for water

vapor transmission rate, and 1cm3 /m2/24hr atm @ 40F at 0% Relative Humidity. A total of

four packages were produced for each treatment, and for each day. Two of the packages, (each

containing approximately 300g of goat ribs) were used for sensory panel. The other two

packages containing approximately 25g of goat meat, each were utilized for microbiological

analysis. The ribs were evaluated after 0, 7, 14, and 21 days storage for sensory characteristics,

microbiology, proximate composition, and pH.

Microbiological Analysis and pH

The goat meat samples were analyzed for Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella, fecal

coliforms, E. Coli 0157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, total anaerobes, total psychrotrophs, and

total aerobes. All media (Difco Laboratories, Detroit, MI 48232-7058) and materials used for the

cultivation and maintenance of the bacteria were purchased from Fisher Scientific (Pittsburgh, PA

15238).Twenty-five grams of goat meat from each formulation were placed in sterile 18 x30 cm

Fisherbrand stomacher bags (400 ml, Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA 15238) along with 225 ml

of sterile 0.1% peptone water (Cat. No. DF01897-17-4). The stomacher bags were massaged by

hand for two minutes to loosen any surface bacteria. The use of the stomacher spilled the mixture.

1 ml of the sample rinse was transferred to a test tube containing 9 mL of sterile 0.1% peptone

water from which 10-1 to 10-6 serial dilutions were prepared for each treatment. 1 \l from the

dilutions was pipetted and spread (using a glass hockey stick which was flame sterilized before









spreading) onto the plates. 0.1 ml aliquot of each dilution was spread onto Xylose Lysine

Desoxycholate Agar (XLD, Cat. No. DF0788-17-9) for Salmonella colonies, Plate Count Agar

(PCA, Cat. No. DF0479-17-3) for total psychrotrophs counts, Anaerobic Agar ( Cat. No. DF0536-

17-4) for total anaerobes, Tryptic Soy Agar (TSA, Cat. No. DF0369-17-6) for total aerobes, m FC

Agar (Cat. No. DF0677-17-3) for fecal coliforms, Oxford Agar (Cat. No. DF0225-17-0) for

Listeria monocytogenes, Oxford media Supplement (Cat. No. DF0214-60-9), Remel Mannitol

Salt Agar (Cat. No. 453902) for Staphylococcus aureus, MacConkey Sorbitol Agar (Cat. No.

DF0075-17-1) for Escherichia coli 0157:H7, AnaeroGenTM 3.5L packets from Remel (Cat. No.

6535) were used in plastic anaerobic jars for the generation of anaerobic conditions. All plates

were done in duplicate. The mFC plates were incubated for 18- 24 hrs at 44 1C. The PCA

plates were stored at 25 1C for 5 days. The TSA plates, Mannitol Salt Agar, and Modified

Oxford Agar plates, MacConkey Sorbitol Agar plates were incubated for 48 hrs at 35 1C. The

XLD, and Anaerobic Agar plates were stored for 24 2 hrs at 37 1C. After incubation,

suspected colony forming units (CFU) from each plate were counted, recorded and averaged.

Immediately after the plates were spread, pH values were measured using Fisher Scientific pH

meter, (Accumet, AB15, Vernonhills, IL), and recorded for all treatments immediately after the

microbiological analyses were completed. The probe was placed inside the sample homogenate

and allowed to equilibrate for one minute before the reading was taken. All pH readings were

performed in duplicates followed by an average of the results.

Sensory Evaluation

Training for the goat meat sensory panels was accomplished in a one-hour session. Most

panelists were already familiar with goat meat and had previously participated in trained panels

involving goat meat. Goat meat was purchased from a local supermarket, and utilized in the

training session. Panelists were trained to identify goat meat flavor and overall tenderness.









The panelists were presented with roasted goat meat without any additives, roasted goat

meat that was treated with apple cider vinegar, and roasted beef. The panelists were asked to rate

the characteristic goat flavor in goat meat with and without apple cider vinegar added. Beef was

presented as a typical meat control, and as a comparison to goat meat flavor. Goat flavor

intensity was evaluated using an 8 point scale, where 8 = extremely intense, 7 = very intense, 6

= moderately intense, 5 = slightly intense, 4 = slightly bland, 3 = moderately intense, 2 = very

bland, 1 = extremely bland. Overall tenderness was evaluated using an 8 point scale, where 8 =

extremely tender, 7 = very tender, 6 = moderately tender, 5 = slightly tender, 4 = slightly tough,

3 = moderately tough, 2 = very tough, 1 = extremely tough.

On the day of evaluation, the samples intended for sensory analysis (2 packages per

treatment) were weighed and then roasted at 1630C, until the meat reached an internal

temperature of 74C in a conventional gas fired oven. Following the cooking process, the

samples were weighed to determine the cooking yield and cut into 1.25 cm2 pieces for sensory

evaluation. All samples were coded, and served on paper plates with unsalted crackers and

ambient temperature water. Panelists were instructed to pause for 20 seconds between samples,

drink water and eat crackers to cleanse their palates. The panels were conducted in sensory

booths illuminated with red filtered lights to create objectivity.

Proximate Analysis

Proximate analysis was performed on each of the goat rib formulations for the two trials.

All analyses were conducted in duplicate samples per treatment on the day of analysis (0, 7, 14,

21). Duplicate samples of each rib formulation were analyzed for moisture using the oven drying

technique (method 985.14 AOAC, 2000), and ash using the muffle oven technique (method

920.153 AOAC, 2000), fat (method 960.39 AOAC, 2000), and protein following the Kjeldahl

procedure (method 928.08 AOAC, 2000).









Cost Analysis

A cost analysis of the goat ribs was performed in order to determine the production cost

and the approximate end price of the goat meat products. The information will be useful in

determining the economical feasibility of the production of the different formulations of goat

ribs. Cost analysis consisted of expenses for goat meat, the processing of the goat carcasses, the

added of the ingredients, and labor.

Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis for this project was performed using SAS Windows (SAS Institute,

2002). A block design with four formulations and two replications was used for evaluating

proximate, pH, microbiological analysis. A total of 64 samples were analyzed for the

microbiology and sensory panel. The analysis of variance of the General Linear Model

Procedures (PROC GLM) of SAS software, and the LSMEANS procedure for generating

standard errors of the mean (SEM) were used to analyze trial, day, treatment, and treatment by

day interaction. Variations in data were accounted for by four treatment effects: trial, treatment,

day, and treatment*day. Any significant differences were analyzed by the multiple comparison

procedure of Duncan's Multiple range test, using a level of significance of alpha = 0.05.

Phase 3: Production and Evaluation of Cook-in-Bag Heat and Serve Barbecue Goat Ribs

Sample Preparation

Goat racks were purchased from a Florida goat meat processor in Orlando, Florida. The

ribs were cut according to the USDA Institutional Meat Purchase Specifications (IMPS, 2006)

for Fresh Goat, barbeque style (approved in October, 2001). The ribs were separated from the

carcass by a straight cut posterior to the last rib on the posterior end. The outside shoulder was

separated by cutting through the natural seam. The neck and the breast were removed. The ribs

were split. The meat was stored at 4 + 10C for 2 days, prior to being used in this study.









Sample Treatment

Goat meat racks were cut into approximately 12 cm by 10 cm pieces with a Biro 44 Band

Saw (The Biro Manufacturing Company, Marblehead, OH 43440- 2099). The racks from the

goats were cut in three longitudinally proportional cuts in the Meats Laboratory of the

Department of Animal Sciences at the University of Florida. The slabs were divided into four

groups and treated with either 1). No treatment, control, 2) apple cider vinegar only, 3) Spice rub

application, and 4) Spice rub application in addition to Apple Cider Vinegar (Table 3-2). Except

for the control treatment and treatment 3 (with spice rub only), the ribs were placed into a

vacuum tumbler (Lyco vacuum tumbler, model 40, Columbus, WI) along with water, salt, apple

cider vinegar, sodium tripolyphosphate, and tumbled for 25 minutes. After marination, the meat

in treatment 3 was coated with the spice rub. The goat meat from each treatment was baked in a

conventional gas fired oven at 1630C until the meat reached an internal temperature of 74C.

Following the cooking process, the meat was allowed to cool and then vacuum packaged with a

commercially available FoodSaver Pro Sport Model Vacuum Packager (Jarden Corporation.

Rye, N.Y.) FoodSaver rolls material. This packaging material was composed of two different

sides: one was rough and bumpy, while the other side was smooth. The specifications for the

FoodSaver bags are 164.232 cc/m2/24 hrs @ 23C on the rough side, and 0.334 cc/m2/24 hrs @

23C. Custom-sized bags (12 in x 11 in) were cut with the FoodSaver Store 'n Cut device and

filled with approximately 300g of goat ribs per bag, and sealed. FoodSaver packaging roll

stock film was used to make 112 bags with the aid of FoodSaver Store 'n Cut device. The

FoodSaver packaging according to the manufacturer was designed for use in refrigerator,

freezer, microwave, for boiling water; and for reuse after proper cleaning. The products were

stored in a 4 + 1C walk-in cooler for 42 days total. The experiment was repeated two times,

using goat meat from the same source for each repetition to ensure product consistency.









Microbiological Analysis and pH

The goat meat samples were analyzed for Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella, fecal

coliforms, E. Coli 0157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, total anaerobes, total psychrotrophs, lactic

acid bacteria and total aerobes. All media (Difco Laboratories, Detroit, MI 48232-7058) and

materials used for the cultivation and maintenance of the bacteria were purchased from Fisher

Scientific (Pittsburgh, PA 15238).Twenty-five grams of goat meat from each formulation were

placed in sterile 18 x30 cm Fisherbrand stomacher bags (400 ml, Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh,

PA 15238) along with 225 ml of sterile 0.1% peptone water (Cat. No. DF01897-17-4). The

stomacher bags were massaged by hand for two minutes to loosen any surface bacteria. The use

of the stomacher spilled the mixture. 1 ml of the sample rinse was transferred to a test tube

containing 9 mL of sterile 0.1% peptone water from which 10-1 to 10-6 serial dilutions were

prepared for each treatment. 1 .il from the dilutions was pipetted and spread (using a glass hockey

stick which was flame sterilized before spreading) onto the plates. 0.1 ml aliquot of each dilution

was spread onto Xylose Lysine Desoxycholate Agar (XLD, Cat. No. DF0788-17-9) for

Salmonella colonies, Plate Count Agar (PCA, Cat. No. DF0479-17-3) for total psychrotrophs

counts, Anaerobic Agar ( Cat. No. DF0536-17-4) for total anaerobes, Tryptic Soy Agar (TSA,

Cat. No. DF0369-17-6) for total aerobes, m FC Agar (Cat. No. DF0677-17-3) for fecal

coliforms, Oxford Agar (Cat. No. DF0225-17-0) for Listeria monocytogenes, Oxford media

Supplement (Cat. No. DF0214-60-9), Remel Mannitol Salt Agar (Cat. No. 453902) for

Staphylococcus aureus, MacConkey Sorbitol Agar (Cat. No. DF0075-17-1) for Escherichia coli

0157:H7, APT Agar (Cat. No. DF0654-17-0) for lactic acid bacteria, and AnaeroGenTM 3.5L

packets from Remel (Cat. No. 6535) were used in plastic anaerobic jars for the generation of

anaerobic conditions. All plates were done in duplicate. The mFC plates were incubated for 18-

24 hrs at 44 1C. The PCA plates were stored at 25 1C for 5 days. The TSA plates, Mannitol









Salt Agar, and Modified Oxford Agar plates, MacConkey Sorbitol Agar plates, and APT plates

were incubated for 48 hrs at 35 1C. The XLD, and Anaerobic Agar plates were stored for 24 +

2 hrs at 37 1C. After incubation, suspected colony forming units (CFU) from each plate were

counted, recorded and averaged. Immediately after the plates were spread, pH values were

measured using Fisher Scientific pH meter, (Accumet, AB15, Vernonhills, IL), and recorded for

all treatments immediately after the microbiological analyses were completed. The probe was

placed inside the sample homogenate and allowed to equilibrate for one minute before the

reading was taken. All pH readings were performed in duplicates followed by an average of the

results.

Sensory Panel Analysis

Training for the goat meat sensory panels was accomplished in a one-hour session. Most

panelists were already familiar with goat meat and had previously participated in trained panels

involving goat meat. Goat meat was purchased from a local supermarket, and utilized in the

training session. Panelists were trained to identify goat meat flavor and overall tenderness. The

panelists were presented with roasted goat meat without any additives, roasted goat meat that

was treated with apple cider vinegar, and roasted beef. The panelists were trained to detect the

characteristic goat flavor in goat meat with and without apple cider vinegar added. Beef was

presented as a typical meat control, and as a comparison to goat meat flavor. Goat flavor

intensity was evaluated using an 8 point scale, where 8 = extremely intense, 7 = very intense, 6

= moderately intense, 5 = slightly intense, 4 = slightly bland, 3 = moderately intense, 2 = very

bland, 1 = extremely bland. Overall tenderness was evaluated using an 8 point scale, where 8 =

extremely tender, 7 = very tender, 6 = moderately tender, 5 = slightly tender, 4 = slightly tough,

3 = moderately tough, 2 = very tough, 1 = extremely tough. Off-flavor was evaluated using a 6 -

point scale, where 6 = none detected, 5 = threshold; barely detected, 4 = slight off-flavor, 3 =









moderate off-flavor, 2 = strong off-flavor, 1 = extreme off-flavor. If an off-flavor was detected

by the panelist, they were asked to identify the off-flavor.

The panels were conducted in sensory booths illuminated with red filtered lights to create

objectivity. Before each taste panel, one package (300g) from each treatment was placed in a

1.5L stainless steel utensil filled to approximately 34 of its capacity with cold tap water. The

conventional gas fired stove (General Electric Model: JGRS14 Built-in Gas Oven) was then

turned on and set at 7 on a 9 point dial, until the water boiled (for thirty minutes). The ribs were

immersed in the boiling water for approximately 20 minutes, and reached an internal temperature

of 81C. There exist alternative cooking processes. The vacuum packaged ribs could be

reconstituted either by using a microwave, or an oven. When reconstituting the goat ribs using a

microwave (Panasonic the Genius 1300W), the bag was punctured first. Secondly, the vacuum

packaged meat product was inserted in the microwave for 3 minutes at high setting to an internal

temperature of 72C. Reconstitution in a conventional electric oven (General Electric Model:

JGRS14 Built-in Gas Oven) was done by moist cooking. An Ovenware Casserole (9 in diameter,

2QT) was used. At first, the oven was preheated to a temperature of 135C. Secondly, a wire top

was placed inside the dish. Thirdly, the product was placed on top of the wire, and a cup of water

poured at the bottom of the casserole. The Ovenware Casserole containing the meat was finally

inserted in the oven for 1.5 hours to an internal temperature of 71 C. Temperatures were

monitored with using copper--constantan thermocouples attached to a potentiometer.

Following the cooking process, the meat was trimmed of all bones and epimysial

connective tissue as suggested by Research Guidelines for Cookery, Sensory Evaluation and

Instrumental Tenderness Measurements of Fresh Meat published by the American Meat Science

Association (AMSA) in cooperation with the National Live Stock and Meat Board (1995). The









meat was placed in a plexiglass container of dimensions 14 cm long x 12 cm wide x 4 cm deep.

Each sample was prepared for sensory using separate cutting boards and knives. The purpose for

this separation was to avoid any cross-contamination (flavors, juices). The ribs were cut into 1cm

x Icm pieces and served in a thermostat controlled yogurt warmer (Salton Inc., Bronx, N.Y.,

Automatic Yogurt Maker). Prior to serving the samples, the glass jars used in the yogurt warmer

were pre-heated at 1350C for 1 hour in a conventional electric oven (General Electric Model:

JGRS14 Built-in Gas Oven)

Consumer Sensory Panel Analysis

In order to evaluate the goat products and the purchase intent by consumers, an untrained

consumer panel consisting of 84 individuals was conducted using the sensory facilities at the

Food Science and Human Nutrition Department at the University of Florida. The booths were

equipped with a computerized system (Compusensefive, Compusense, Ontario, Canada) in a

room illuminated with white light. All the instructions were given in detail on the computer for

the panelists. There were pass-through hatches to provide samples to panelists. Compusensefive

program, a sensory and consumer research data collection program from Compusense was used

during the consumer panel.

As a result of the trained panel, it was determined that the goat meat samples formulated

with spice rub only, and marinade plus spice rub be evaluated in the consumer panel. The

samples (Goat meat + Spice rub, and Goat meat + Marinade + Spice rub) were served randomly

to the panelists. Each panelist was given crackers, water, a number (panelist number) to input in

the computer, and instructed to lift the hatch' door completely once finished. The panelists were

instructed to evaluate the two products for meat flavor intensity, overall flavor, and texture, and

overall acceptability using a hedonic scale where 1= dislike extremely, 5= neither like or dislike

and 9= like extremely. A hedonic scale is a rating scale method that measures the level of liking









or disliking of food products (O'Mahony, 1986). A score of 5 and over would indicate that the

product was acceptable. The panelists were also asked to identify their sex, age group, and

whether he/ she would buy the products. The data were collected automatically at the end of the

sensory session and printed for analysis.

Proximate Analysis

Proximate analysis was performed on each of the goat rib formulations for the two trials.

All analyses were conducted in duplicate samples per treatment on the day of analysis (0, 7, 14,

21). Duplicate samples of each rib formulation were analyzed for moisture using the oven drying

technique (method 985.14 AOAC, 2000), and ash using the muffle oven technique (method

920.153 AOAC, 2000), fat (method 960.39 AOAC, 2000), and protein following the Kjeldahl

procedure (method 928.08 AOAC, 2000).

Cost Analysis

A cost analysis of the goat ribs was performed in order to determine the production cost

and the approximate end price of the goat meat products. The information will be useful in

determining the economical feasibility of the production of the different formulations of goat

ribs. Cost analysis consisted of expenses for goat meat, the processing of the goat carcasses, the

added of the ingredients, and labor.

Statistical Analysis

The statistical analysis for this project was performed using SAS Windows (SAS Institute,

2002). A block design with four formulations and two replications was used for evaluating

proximate, pH, TBARS, sensory and microbiological analysis. A total of 112 samples were

analyzed for the microbiology and sensory panel. The analysis of variance of the General Linear

Model Procedures (PROC GLM) of SAS software, and the LSMEANS procedure for

generating standard errors of the mean (SEM) were used to analyze trial, day, treatment, and









treatment by day interaction. Variations in data were accounted for by four treatment effects:

trial, treatment, day, and treatment*day. Any significant differences were analyzed by the

multiple comparison procedure of Duncan's Multiple range test, using a level of significance of

alpha = 0.05.

Thiobarbituric Acid Reactive Substances Analysis


Thiobarbituric Acid Reactive Substances (TBARS) distillation procedure for meat and

poultry was adapted using procedures from Tarladgis et al. (1960), Rhee (1978) and Ke et al.

(1984). In the adapted procedure, the sample was read against the blank at the optical wavelength

of 535nm. In addition, 66% recovery was obtained, compared to 69% in Tarladgis et al. (1960),

resulting in a variation in the K (distillation) value.









Table 3-1. Weight and sex data for Spanish, Boer Crossbred Meat Goats purchased from Eunice
Cornelius farm
Tag # Sex Live Weight Live Weight Carcass Carcass


(lbs)
61
65
76
51
68
70
45
70
68
60
64
64


(kg)
27.66
29.48
34.47
23.13
30.84
31.75
20.41
31.75
30.84
27.21
29.02
28.77


Weight (lbs)
30
30
35
24
31
33
22
33
34
28
30
30


Yield (%)
49.18
46.15
46.05
47.06
45.59
47.14
48.89
47.14
50.00
57.13
46.88
48.29


Table 3-2. Goat Meat Marinade
Formulation
Ingredients 1 2 3 4
% % % %
Fajitaa 2.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Water 8.0 8.6 9.0 11.0
Salt 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Apple Cider 2.0 2.0 1.0 0.0
Vinegarb
Sodium 0.0 0.4 0.4 0.4
Tripolyphosphatec
Goat Meat 88.0 88.0 86.6 86.6
Lime juiced -- 2.0 1.0
a: A.C. Legg Packing Co., Inc, Birmingham, AL
b: Albertson's Inc., Boise ID
C: Budenheim Gallard-Schlesinger, Plainview, NY


10
11
09
12
15
16
17
14
61
18
62
Mean









Table 3-3. Marinade formulations for Goat meat ribs: Phase 1
Ingredients Recipe 1 Recipe 2
(%) (%)
Water 10.00 10.00
Salt 1.00 1.00
Apple Cider Vinegar 2.00 0.00
Sodium Tripolyphosphate 0.40 0.40
Meat 86.60 86.60
Lime Juice 0.00 2.00


Table 3-4. Spice Blend Rub for Goat meat ribs
Ingredients Grams/ 25 lbs of meat
Salt 25.00
Black Pepper 18.75
Cayenne pepper 6.25
Dried Thyme 18.75
Garlic Powder 25.00
Onion Powder 25.00
Paprika 25.00


Source


Badia Spices, Miami FL
Zatarain's, New Orleans FL
Badia Spices, Miami FL
Badia Spices, Miami FL
Badia Spices, Miami FL
Badia Spices, Miami FL


Table 3-5. Weight and sex data for Spanish Boer Crossbred Meat Goats purchased from Norma
Tillman farm
Tag # Sex Live Weight Live Weight Carcass Carcass


(kg)
19.05
24.94
24.04
20.86
17.23
20.41
20.86
22.67
18.14
18.14


Weight (lbs)
20
28
26
22
17
22
24
19
17
25


Yield (%)
47.62
50.91
49.06
47.83
44.74
48.89
52.17
38.00
42.50
62.50


Recipe 3
(%)
10.00
1.00
1.00
0.40
86.60
1.00


Recipe 4
(%)
12.00
1.00
0.00
0.40
86.60
0.00


32
08
037
16
10
25
30
11
05
04


(lbs)
42
55
53
46
38
45
46
50
40
40









CHAPTER 4
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

The objectives of this study were to (1) develop refrigerated value-added vacuum packaged

raw goat ribs, (2) evaluate proximate composition, pH, sensory and microbiological

characteristics of four formulations on the raw goat rib formulations, (3) develop a convenient

and marketable refrigerated vacuum packaged heat and serve goat meat rib product, and (4)

evaluate proximate composition, pH, Thiobarbituric Acid Reactive Substances (TBARS), cost

sensory and microbiological characteristics of four heat and serve goat rib formulations.

Marinated Vacuum Packaged Raw Goat Ribs refrigerated for 21 days at 4 1C

Microbiological Analysis

Fecal coliforms

Fecal coliforms remained less than 2 log CFU/g through 21 days storage (Table 4-1).

Although fecal coliforms were less than 2 log CFU/g for all treatments, the spice rub alone and

in combination with marinade resulted in higher microbial counts (P > 0.05). In contrast, no fecal

coliforms were detected after 7 and through 21 days storage for the control and samples treated

with marinade only. This observation suggested that low levels of fecal coliforms might have

been present in the dry spice rub ingredients.

Aerobic plate counts

Aerobic microorganisms (Table 4-2) were less than 6 log CFU/g, for all treatments

through 21 days storage. In general, aerobic plate counts (APC) increased for all treatments as

storage time increased. The control (plain goat meat) had the least amount of aerobic counts on

Day 0 (when compared to other treatments). Initially on Day 0, APCs for the control were

significantly lower (P < 0.05) when compared to treatment 4. On Day 7, APCs were significantly

lower (P < 0.05) when compared to treatment 3. A similar finding was observed on Day 14,









when APCs were significantly lower ((P < 0.05) for treatment 2, when compared to all other

treatments. This could be due to the presence of marinade in treatments 2 and 4. There were no

significant differences (P > 0.05) in APCs among treatments for Day 21. No significant increase

in APCs was revealed over time, through 21 days storage, for the goat ribs that were marinated

or marinated and rubbed with spice. APCs for the control ribs increased significantly (P < 0.05)

after 14 and 21 days storage. This finding suggested a continuous antimicrobial effect of the

marinade against the aerobic microorganisms. The growth of aerobic microorganisms in the

vacuum packaged system suggested the existence of facultative anaerobes.

Psychrotroph counts

In general, psychrotrophic counts increased as storage time increased (Table 4-3) for all

treatments. Psychrotrophs counts were less than 4 log and not significantly different (P > 0.05)

from each other at Day 0. After Day 0, significant differences (P < 0.05) were noted between

treatments. A similar trend was observed for psychrotrophic and APCs, wherein the marinade

with and without the spice rub displayed antimicrobial properties. Treatment 3 (Goat + Spice

Rub) had the highest count, followed by the control (plain goat meat). The significant increase (P

< 0.05) between Day 0 and Day 7 and the significant decrease between Day 7 and 14 of

treatment 4 could be due to contamination of the media. Microbial growth is stimulated by a rich

medium such as fresh meat.

Anaerobic plate counts

Anaerobic microorganisms were present in all the treatments, at the end of the storage time

(Table 4-4). There was no significant increase (P > 0.05) in anaerobic counts over storage days.

Anaerobic counts for treatment 3 were initially significantly different (P < 0.05) from the other

three treatments. The presence of anaerobes on Day 0 suggested that they may be facultative, and

the spice may have contained microorganisms. During Days 7 and 14, the control had









significantly higher (P < 0.05) anaerobes counts, when compared to all other treatments. The

addition of marinade with and without the spice rub resulted in significantly lower (P > 0.05)

anaerobic counts. This observation revealed antimicrobial properties in the marinade plus spice

rub.

Product Analysis

The pH analysis

The pH values varied between 5.79 and 6.40 (Table 4-5). On Day 0, pH values for

treatments 2 (goat + marinade), and 4 (goat meat with marinade and spice rub) were significantly

lower (P < 0.05) than the other two treatments. The pH values for Days 7, 14, 21 were

significantly lower (P < 0.05) for treatments 3 and 4, when compared to treatments 1 and 2.

Normal meat pH (beef) with good keeping qualities in refrigerated state has values between 5.4

and 5.7 (Gill & Newton, 1981). At the isoelectric point of proteins the pH value ranges from 5.0

to 5.4, and the water holding capacity (WHC) is at its lowest. On either side of the isoelectric

point, WHC increases steadily with pH (Young et al., 2005). Because alkaline polyphosphates

(pH of 9.8) were used in this study, a higher pH value and WHC are to be expected. Salt

interferes with this phenomenon by shifting from the isoelectric point to a more acidic pH.

Hamm (1982) found that WHC improved with pH up to 7.5 at least. pH values never reached 7.5

in this study, but were less than 6.5. Values of pH closest to the neutral point (pH 7.0) may

promote microbial growth: spoilage bacteria multiply rapidly at high meat pH, consequently

shortening shelf life.

Proximate analysis

The moisture values were similar (P > 0.05) for all treatments (Table 4-6). The mean moisture

value reported by the USDA SR 19 (2006) is 75.84%. This result is a mean for edible portions.









Moisture analysis performed for Boer goats by Webb et al. (2005) and Tshabalala et al. (2003)

revealed 69.4%. The moisture values reported by the researchers are similar to the values

obtained in this study. Boer goat has an average of 10.5% fat (Tshabalala et al., 2003; Webb et

al., 2005). Differences observed when comparisons are done among data imply other sources of

variation (sex, age, nutrition, breed, weight). There was no significant difference (P > 0.05)

among treatments regarding protein percentage. Ash values of Treatment 3 were significantly

different (P < 0.05) from those of Treatment 1 and 2 (Table 4-6). This disparity may be due to

the existence of variability in the loin muscles, and the presence of the spice rub.

Cost analysis

A comparative cost analysis was performed to determine the production costs and retail

values for the formulated four treatments applied to the goat ribs (Table 4-8). The price of the

goat carcass was calculated based on purchasing price $8.59/ kg, processing fees $1.10/ kg, and

boning price $0.44/ kg. The non meat ingredients costs were calculated using the percentages in

the formulations for the production of 100 kg batch of goat ribs. A mark up of 30% was used as

an average for a processed meat product being sold. A serving of vacuum packaged seasoned

raw goat ribs would cost the consumer $11.74/kg. All uncooked beef steaks retail for $11.92/kg,

all pork chops for $6.94/kg, and USDA-ERS retail chicken composite for $3.63/kg. The

calculated retail price for the goat ribs is not excessive, and is slightly higher than pork price.

Trained Sensory Evaluation

The trained panelists found differences among the four treatments regarding overall

tenderness (Table 4-7). Overall tenderness varied from slightly tender to moderately tender. On

Days 0, 14, and 21 there was no significant difference (P > 0.05) among treatments. On Day 7,

panelists rated overall tenderness in the control significantly lower (P < 0.05) than ribs that were

marinated and treated with the spice rub. The ribs were rated slightly tender, and the marinated-









spice rub ribs were rated moderately tender. This observation suggested that the marinade- spice

rub functioned to increase tenderness in the ribs. In addition, storage time had no significant

effect (P > 0.05) on overall tenderness through 21 days. These results may be due to the use of

young goats (6 months of age). In general, meat from young goats is more tender than older

goats (Gaili et al.,1972, Riley et al., 1989). Kannan (2001) also found that vacuum packaged leg,

shoulder, and loin cuts in were slightly more tender than those in air-permeable film.

Goat flavor intensity was similar (P > 0.05) for all treatments through 14 days storage.

After 21 days storage, goat meat treated with spice rub and a combination of spice rub and

marinade had significantly lower (P < 0.05) goat flavor intensity than the control ribs. The data

suggested that the spice rub functioned to minimize goat flavor intensity in presence and absence

of marinade. Except for the control sample, storage time had no effect (P > 0.05) on goat flavor

intensity. Goat flavor intensity in the control sample increased significantly (P < 0.05) after 21

days storage from moderately bland (3.89) to slightly intense (5.50). Panelists detected a sour

and sulfur-like odor in the control samples after 21 days, which was attributed primarily to

microbial degradation.











Marinated Vacuum Packaged Heat and Serve Goat Ribs refrigerated for 42 days
at 4 1C

Microbiological Analysis

Aerobic plate counts

There was no significant difference (P > 0.05) among the four treatments on Day 0 (Table

4-9). On Day 7, only the treatment containing marinade only had no detectable microbial growth.

On Day 28, no microorganisms were detected in all treatments. Possible sources of errors were

methodology, aerobes reaching the death phase, limited oxygen in the package, and presence of

Bacillus cereus. Because the goat ribs were cooked before vacuum packaging, no strict aerobic

microorganisms should have been present. The existence of these specific microbes suggests

either a contamination from the air during the cooling process, or the oxygen permeability of the

package. Overall there were variations among all treatments. Treatments 2 and 4 showed the

least microbial counts. The vacuum packaged cooked marinated goat ribs with a spice rub

applied (treatment 4) were acceptable. All the other treatments developed either a rancid off-

flavor, or an off odor.

Psychrotroph counts

Psychrotrophic organisms counts varied from 0 to 5.95 log CFU/g. (Table 4-10)

Psychrotrophic counts for treatments 1 and 2 were significantly lower (P < 0.05) on Day 0 when

compared to treatments 3 and 4. Except for the spice rub, the data had a decrease in

psychrotrophic organisms after 21 days and through 42 days for all treatments. This observation

suggested that the spice blend might have contributed to microbial contamination of the meat.

The psychrotrophic counts remained less than 6 log CFU/g for all treatment.









Anaerobic counts

No total anaerobic counts were detected on Day 0 (Table 4-11). However, after Day 7,

total anaerobes were detected in all samples except for treatment 2. The values for total

anaerobes through the shelf life study were between 0 and 6.05 log. There was an almost 3 log

increase from Day 14 to Day 21. This sharp increase could be attributed to the packaging not

being oxygen free. Another suggestion would be the presence of facultative anaerobes. On Day

28, there was 2.65 log of anaerobe bacteria in treatment 2 which so far had 0 microbial count. A

methodology error may have caused the 0 bacterial counts for treatment 2 through time, with the

exception of Day 28. The package may also have had oxygen present inside it. For the control,

there was no significant difference (P > 0.05) between Days 7, 14, 21, 28, and 35. Days 0 and 42

microbial counts (0 log) were significantly different (P < 0.05) from days 7, 14, 21, 28, and 35

for all treatments. There was an increase on Day 21 for treatment 3 (spice rub) followed by a

slide decrease at Day 28. The microorganisms needed time to grow after Day 0, but reached a

peak between Day 21 and 28. At Day 42, no anaerobes microorganisms were detected suggesting

a passage from the stationary phase to the death phase.

Lactic Acid Bacteria counts

The presence of lactic acid bacteria in meat products is less damaging because of the slow

growth, leading to a longer shelf-life of meat in vacuum package (Blickstad, 1983). Because the

shelf life of lamb has been found to be shorter than beef and pork (Shaw et al., 1980; Egan and

Shay, 1984), goat meat should follow the same path. Vacuum packaging has the role of

inhibiting spoilage microbes (pseudomonads) and allowing the dominance by low spoilage lactic

acid bacteria (Babji et al., 2000). Initial flora, pH of meat, prevalence or absence of facultative

anaerobes will however influence the dominance of lactic acid bacteria (Grau, 1980, 1981). In

Table 4-12, the bacteria were either absent or present at very low levels in the meat on Day 0.









There was a significant increase in the microbial counts from Day 14 to Day 21, except for

treatment 2. The highest (P < 0.05) counts occurred in the treatment containing a combination of

apple cider vinegar and spice rub on Day 21. The lactic acid data demonstrated that the marinade

was effective in controlling the growth of lactic acid bacteria. The microorganisms may have

reached their stationary phase during Days 21 and 28, and their death phase during Day 35 (for

treatment 2) and Day 42 (treatments 1, 3 and 4). The application of the spice rub and the meat

itself may have been sources of "contamination" even though the control also registered high

microbial counts.

Spice blend analysis

Analysis of spices revealed a slimy mucoidal off-white colony. The colonies were

identified as Bacillus cereus. This bacterium was isolated primarily from the spice rub blend, and

sporadically on the goat meat. Common sources of infection of this specific microorganism are:

raw, dried or processed foods, spices, soil, air, water, dust, animals, meat products, starchy foods,

vegetables. This organism was also found on the goat meat (raw, and cooked). Srivastava et al.

(1981) and Sinha and Mandal,(1977) isolated Enterobacter sp., Escherichia coli and Klebsiella

sp. and Bacillus cereus from frozen goat meat. This bacterium can adapt to acidic conditions,

heat, ethanol, salt, and hydrogen peroxide after prior exposition (Browne and Dowds, 2002).

Consequently, the shelf life study was terminated.

Product Analysis

The pH measurements

The pH values (Table 4-13) varied between 5.81 and 6.78, with the highest pH

corresponding to Day 42 of the control treatment. There was no significant difference in pH

values (P < 0.05) between Day 0 and Day 42 of the control. On all days of storage, goat meat

formulated with marinade alone or in combination with spice rub had significantly lower (P <









0.05) pH values when compared to goat meat with spice rub (except for spice rub only on Day

42) and the control. The presence of lactic acid bacteria may not have contributed to the decrease

in pH reported for the treatments. The data suggested that the decrease in pH was due largely to

the addition of the acetic acid in the marinade.

Proximate analysis

Protein, Fat, and Ash values (Table 4-14) were similar (P > 0.05) for all treatments.

Moisture content was significantly higher (P < 0.05) for the control when compared to the spice

rub only treatment. Except for values for Fat and Ash, proximate in this study are similar to

values reported by the USDA Nutritive Value of the Edible Part of Food. The closest animal to

goat was lamb. Broiled lamb loin (3oz of lean and fat) had values of 52% moisture, 24.7% fat,

and 23.5% protein.

Cost analysis

A comparative cost analysis was performed to determine the production costs and retail

values for the formulated four treatments applied to the goat ribs (Table 4-15). The price of the

goat meat was calculated based on purchasing price $10.09/kg, processing fees $1.10/kg, and

boning price $0.44/kg. The non meat ingredients costs were calculated using the percentages in

the formulations for the production of 100kg batch of goat ribs. A mark up of 30% was used as

an average for a processed meat product being sold. One pound of vacuum packaged seasoned

cooked goat ribs would cost the consumer $7.19, or $15.84/kg. No product of this type exists on

the market for goat. Similar Heat and Serve vacuum packaged marinated products exist for pork

on the market. Chili's Mesquite Smoked and Seasoned Baby Back Pork Ribs retails for

$18.81/kg, while Lloyds Barbeque Seasoned & Smoked Baby Back Pork ribs and Tony Roma's

Baby Back Ribs respectively sell for $16.87/kg and $12.97/kg. The cost analysis for the vacuum

packaged seasoned cooked goat ribs did not include labeling, transportation, and advertising.









This Heat and Serve goat rib product has some success potential. Consumer's desire in the

United States for convenience (cut up meats, marinated, ready to eat meals) will make this heat

and serve goat product a success once on the market.

Thiobarbituric Acid Reactive Substances

This study (Table 4-16) shows variability in TBARS among treatments and during the

storage time. A maximum increase in TBARS was observed for all samples on Day 28.

Significant differences (P < 0.05) over time were observed for the control and treatment 4.

TBARS increased significantly (P < 0.05) for the control on Day 0 from 0.68 to 4.10 mg

malonaldehyde/ kg on Day 28. In accordance, TBARS increased significantly (P < 0.05) for

treatment 4 on Day 0 from 0.78 to 2.52 mg malonaldehyde/ kg on Day 28. Some spices such as

rosemary, garlic, spices have antioxidant properties (Bishov et al., 1977; Chang et al., 1977;

Houliahan et al. 1984, 1985; Barbut et al., 1985), onions, and green peppers (Watts, 1962)

improve flavor stability during storage. The presence of spices also may have counteracted the

prooxidant effect of the salt.

Trained Sensory Evaluation

Except for the Control, all treatments had similar (P > 0.05) goat flavor intensity through

28 days storage time (Table 4-17). Sensory tasting was discontinued for the control after day 28

because of off-flavor that could be associated to rancidity. The panelists rated all samples

slightly bland (4.00) to slightly intense (5.68). Because age may be a factor with flavor,

Schonfeldt et al. (1993a) found that the younger the goats are (10- 30 kg), the more desirable

flavor. Overall, there was no significant difference (P > 0.05) between treatments through the 42

days shelf life, regarding overall tenderness. Scores for all treatments varied between slightly

tender and moderately tender. The different treatments did not seem to have an effect on the

overall tenderness of the ribs. The product was acceptable. Using goat meat and a spicy









formulation to produce processed food, results in an acceptable sensory quality (Breukink and

Casey, 1989; Tshabalala et al., 2003; Rhee et al., 2003). Smith et al. (1974) found that goat meat

has the same juiciness, but less tenderness, and less overall satisfaction when compared to pork,

beef, and lamb at comparable maturity and fatness. Schonfeldt et al. (1993a) found that goat

meat was less tender, had more residue, shear force resistance, and collagen content than sheep

meat. Sen et al. (2004) also found goat meat less tender than sheep meat.

Consumer Sensory Evaluation

A total of 82 panelists participated in the consumer sensory evaluation for goat ribs

prepared with topical rub only, and ribs prepared with a combination of marinade and spice rub.

Approximately 46.3% of the consumer panelists were male, while 53.7% were female. The age

group varied from "under 18" and "over 60" (Table 4-18). Approximately 78.1% of the panelists

were in the age range of 18 to 29, and 41.5% of all panelists had eaten goat meat before,

compared to 58.5% that were tasting goat meat for the first time in their lives .Approximately

94.1% of the panelists consumed goat meat more than once a year, but not more than once a

month. In addition, their demographics were diverse: the United States, the Caribbean, Canada,

South America, and Asia.

Consumer Sensory Panel Analysis

Treatment 4 was rated significantly higher (P < 0.05) in meat flavor intensity when

compared to treatment 3 (Table 4-19). The consumer panelists rated the flavor of the meat for

both samples between like slightly to like moderately. Panelists rated the overall flavor of

treatment 4 significantly higher (P < 0.05) than treatment 3. The texture of both samples was

similar (P > 0.05). The rating for overall acceptance was significantly different between

treatments (Table 4-19). The panelists scored both samples between "like slightly" and "like

moderately". The consumer panelists were also more likely to purchase the goat meat that had









been marinated and a spice rub applied over goat meat with a spice rub applied only. These two

treatments were significantly different from each other (P < 0.05). Among the panelists (46.3%

male, and 53.7% female), 50% will buy goat meat with a spice rub only versus 70.8% for

marinated goat meat with a spice rub applied. These sensory results suggested the potential

success of the marinated and spice rubbed goat meat.









Table 4-1. Mean fecal coliform counts for vacuum packaged raw goat ribs stored at 4 1C for
21 days
(log CFU/g)
Treatments* Day 0 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21
1 1.30a'w 0.00x 0.00bx 0.50abwx
2 0.70b,w 0.00x 0.00bx 0.00b,x
3 1.20ab 0.25 1.32a 0.77a
4 0.77ab 0.37 0.65ab 1.15a
*1: Control, 2: Goat + marinade, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub
a-b means in same column with different superscript are significantly different (P < 0.05).
w-x means in same row with different superscript are significantly different (P < 0.05). Each mean
value represents four measurements.

Table 4-2. Mean aerobic plate counts for vacuum packaged raw goat ribs stored at 4 10C for
21 days
(log CFU/g)
Treatments* Day 0 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21
1 2.07bw 3.35 a'w 5.70ax 5.25x
2 3.07ab 3.42ab 2.45b 4.75
3 3.60ab 3.95a 5.35a 4.90
4 4.62aw 2.32b'x 5.45a'w 5.35"
*1: Control, 2: Goat + marinade, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub
a-b means in same column with different superscript are significantly different (P < 0.05).
w-x means in same row with different superscript are significantly different (P < 0.05). Each mean
value represents four measurements.

Table 4-3. Mean psychrotrophic counts on vacuum packaged raw goat ribs stored at 4 1C for
21 days
(log CFU/g)
Treatments* Day 0 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21
1 3.65" 7.25ax 5.98ax 7.40a'x
2 3.80" 5.95c''x 6.51ax 6.85b'x
3 2.60" 6.25b'x 5.81ax 7.75ay
4 2.00" 6.10bc,x,y 3.42b,w,x 6.65by
*1: Control, 2: Goat + marinade, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub
a-c means in same column with different superscript are significantly different (P < 0.05).
w-y means in same row with different superscript are significantly different (P < 0.05). Each mean
value represents four measurements.









Table 4-4. Mean anaerobic counts on vacuum packaged raw goat ribs stored at 4 1C for 21
days
(log CFU/g)
Treatments* Day 0 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21
1 0.00a 3.02a 3.53a 0.57
2 0.00a 2.07b 1.20b 1.65
3 2.55b 1.82b 1.85b 1.17
4 0.00a 2.57ab 1.57b 1.24
*1: Control, 2: Goat + marinade, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub
a-b means in same column with different superscript are significantly different (P < 0.05). Each
mean value represents four measurements.

Table 4-5. Mean pH values for vacuum packaged raw goat ribs stored at 4 1C for 21 days
Treatments* Day 0 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21
1 6.22ab 6.20a 6.20a 6.10a
2 5.99b,x 6.26aw 6.23aw 6.03ab,x
3 6.40aw 5.99C'x 5.98b,x 5.95b'x
4 6.05b,w 6.14bw 6.02b,wx 5.79'
*1: Control, 2: Goat + marinade, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub
a-c means in same column with different superscript are significantly different (P < 0.05).
w-x means in same row with different superscript are significantly different (P < 0.05). Each mean
value represents four measurements.

Table 4-6. Proximate analysis for vacuum packaged raw goat ribs stored at 4 10C for 21 days
Formulations* Moisture Fat Protein Ash
(%) (%) (%) (%)
1 67.20 13.48b 14.50 1.98
2 65.37 17.22a 14.70 1.87b
3 67.64 11.22b 14.82 2.98a
4 67.41 13.34b 15.60 2.51a
*1: Control, 2: Goat + marinade, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub
a-b means in same column with different superscript are significantly different (P < 0.05). Each
mean value represents four measurements.









Table 4-7. Trained sensory evaluation scores on overall tenderness and goat flavor intensity for
vacuum packaged raw goat ribs stored at 4 1C for 21 days
Storage time
Parameter Treatment Day 0 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21
Overall tenderness1 1 5.6 5.7b 6.4 5.5
2 5.6 6.0ab 5.76 5.3
3 5.8 6.2ab 5.9 5.4
4 5.8 6.6a 6.1 5.9
Goat flavor intensity2 1 3.9,x 4.5wx 5.0wx 5.5aw
2 4.2 4.3 4.8 5.2ab
3 3.8 4.1 4.4 4.0c
4 3.2 4.12 4.2 4.2bc
*1: Control, 2: Goat + marinade, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub
a-c means in same column with different superscript are significantly different (P < 0.05).
w-x means in same row with different superscript are significantly different (P < 0.05). Each mean
value represents four measurements.
1Score Scale. 8 = extremely tender, 7 = very tender, 6 = moderately tender, 5 = slightly tender, 4
= slightly tough, 3 = moderately tough, 2 = very tough, 1 = extremely tough.
2Score Scale. 8 = extremely intense, 7 = very intense, 6 = moderately intense, 5 = slightly
intense, 4 = slightly bland, 3 = moderately bland, 2 = very bland, 1 = extremely bland.

Table 4-8. Comparative cost analysis for 100 kg batches of vacuum packaged raw goat ribs
Ingredients Goat meat
($)
Meat 858.00
Water 0.03
Salt 0.72
Apple Cider Vinegar 13.00
Sodium Tripolyphosphate 2.48
Black pepper 5.60
Cayenne pepper 2.12
Dried Thyme 4.56
Garlic powder 2.30
Onion powder 1.20
Paprika 5.70
Vacuum pouches 7.04
Total cost/ 100 kg batch 902.75
Total cost/ 1 kg 6.27
Mark up (30%) 270.82
Total cost/ 100 kg batch 1173.57
Total cost/1 kg 11.74
Total cost/ 454g 5.33









Table 4-9. Mean total aerobic counts for refrigerated vacuum-packaged heat and serve goat ribs
stored at 4 1C for 42 days.
(log CFU/g)
Treatments* Day 0 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21 Day Day 35 Day 42
28
1 1.62x 1.71ax 3.71abwx 5.48b,w 0.00x 2.32bc,w,x 3.17a,w,x
2 3.30x 0.00by 1.59b,x,y 5.17b,w 0.00y 0.00cy 0.00by
3 2.12xy 1.00ab,x,y 5.78aw 5.79ab,w 0.00 6.02aw 3.31awx
4 2.15xy 1.81a,x,y 2.72b,x,y 6.20aw 0.00y 3.27b,x 0.95ab,x,y
*1: Control, 2: Goat + marinade, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub
a-b means in same column with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05).
w-y means in same row with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05). Each
mean value represents four measurements.

Table 4-10. Mean total psychrotrophs counts for refrigerated vacuum-packaged heat and serve
goat ribs stored at 4 1C for 42 days.
(log CFU/g)
Treatments* Day 0 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21 Day 28 Day 35 Day 42
1 0.00by 1.76bxy 5.95aw 1.70bcy 0.00by 2.60xy 3.53a'w'x
2 1.00b 0.50b 1.56b 3.28b 2.20a 2.34 1.80b
3 3.72awx 1.38b,y,z 5.67aw 5.61a,w 0.00b,z 5.86w 2.91ab,x,y
4 3.07awx 4.30aw 5.16aw 0.00C, 0.00b,x 3.39" 2.84abw,x
*1: Control, 2: Goat + marinade, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub
a-c means in same column with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05).
w-y means in same row with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05). Each
mean value represents four measurements.

Table 4-11. Mean total anaerobes counts for refrigerated vacuum-packaged heat and serve goat
ribs stored at 4 1C for 42 days.
(log CFU/g)
Treatments* Day 0 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21 Day 28 Day 35 Day 42
1 0.00x 1.62awx 2.96aw 2.61bc,w 2.69b,w 2.29abw 0.00x
2 0.00x 0.00b,x 0.00b,x 0.00Ox 2.65b,w 0.00b,x 0.00x
3 0.00z 1.09ab,y,z 3.21a,x,y 6.05a,w 4.78awx 4.61a'w,x 0.00z
4 O.00 1.71a,x,y 3.09a'w'x 3.23ab,w,x 2.81b,w,x 4.53aw 0.00y
*1: Control, 2: Goat + marinade, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub
a-c means in same column with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05).
w-z means in same row with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05). Each
mean value represents four measurements.









Table 4-12. Mean total lactic acid bacteria counts for refrigerated vacuum-packaged heat and
serve goat ribs stored at 4 1C for 42 days.
(log CFU/g)
Treatments* Day 0 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21 Day 28 Day 35 Day 42
1 1.07xy 1.60xy 3.06ax 5.29,w 5.13aw 1.71ab,x,y 0.00
2 0.00 0.91wx 1.68b,w,x 0.00d,x 2.75b,w 0.00b,x 0.00x
3 1.00xy 0.00y 3.26awx 5.71b,w 2.78b,xy 2.90ax 0.00y
4 1.00xy 1.84xy 3.13ax 6.40aw 2.80b,x 3.25ax 0.00y
*1: Control, 2: Goat + marinade, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub
a-c means in same column with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05).
w-z means in same row with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05). Each
mean value represents four measurements.

Table 4-13. Mean pH values for refrigerated vacuum-packaged heat and serve goat ribs stored at
4 + 1C for 42 days.
Treatments* Day 0 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21 Day 28 Day 35 Day 42
1 6.70aw 6.63a''x 6.63a''x 6.38ay 6.70aw 6.46a,x,y 6.78aw
2 6.17b,wxy 6.10b,x,y 6.05c' 5.89Cz 6.20CW, 6.24b,v,w 6.36b,v
3 6.59aw 6.50a'wx 6.42b'x'y 6.25b'z 6.33b'y'z 6.43a,x,y 6.44bx,y
4 6.20b 6.16b 5.95c 5.95c 6.14c 5.81c 5.99c
*1: Control, 2: Goat + marinade, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub
a-c means in same column with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05).
v-z means in same row with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05). Each
mean value represents four measurements.

Table 4-14. Mean proximate values for refrigerated vacuum-packaged heat and serve goat ribs
stored at 4 1C for 42 days.
% content
Treatments* Moisture Protein Fat Ash
1 57.83a 22.08 16.25 3.65
2 55.82ab 26.66 14.60 3.38
3 52.79b 23.50 17.74 3.52
4 56.60ab 21.32 16.75 3.28
*1: Control, 2: Goat + marinade, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub
a-b means in same column with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05). Each
mean value represents four measurements.









Table 4-15. Comparative cost analysis for 100 kg batches of vacuum packaged heat and serve
goat ribs


Ingredients
Meat
Water
Salt
Apple Cider Vinegar
Sodium Tripolyphosphate
Black pepper
Cayenne pepper
Dried Thyme
Garlic powder
Onion powder
Paprika
Vacuum pouches
Total cost/ 100 kg batch
Total cost/1 kg
Mark up (30%)
Total cost/ 100 kg batch
Total cost/1 kg
Total cost/ 454g


Heat and Serve Goat Ribs
1007.60
0.03
0.72
13.00
2.48
5.60
2.12
4.56
2.30
1.20
5.70
173.00
1218.31
12.18

1583.80
15.84
7.19


Table 4-16. Mean TBARS for refrigerated vacuum-packaged heat and serve goat ribs stored at 4
1C for 42 days.


mg of malonaldehyde//


kg sample


Treatments* Day 0 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21 Day 28 Day 35 Day 42
1 0.68x 0.82abx 0.84x 2.00wx 4.10" 1.74wx 2.19wx
2 4.29 1.81a 0.70 1.46 4.79 3.73 1.25
3 0.34 1.25ab 0.66 0.90 4.58 0.42 2.30
4 0.78x 0.49bw 1.41wx 0.81wx 2.52" 1.70wx 0.86wx
*1: Control, 2: Goat + marinade, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub
a-b means in same column with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05).
w-x means in same row with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05). Each
mean value represents four measurements.










Table 4-17. Mean trained sensory panel scores for goat flavor intensity and overall tenderness
for heat and serve goat ribs stored at 4 1C for 42 days


er Treatment* Day 0
vor 1 4.5wx
S 2 4.6
3 4.5
4 4.0
1 5.3
ess2 2 4.9
3 5.5
4 5.3
*1: Control, 2: Goat + marinade,


Day 7 Day 14
4.6w,x 5.7w
4.8 5.2
5.2 4.9
4.8 4.9
6.5 6.5a
5.9 5.9ab
5.6 6.1a
5.6 4.9b
3: Goat + spice rub,


Storage time
Day 21 Day 28
4.0x 5.3awx
4.7 5.2
4.7 4.7
4.7 5.2
5.8 6.0
5.7 5.2
6.0 6.2
5.5 6.0


4: Goat + marinade + spice rub


a-b means in same column with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05).
w-x means in same row with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05). Each
mean value represents four measurements.
DP: Discontinued Panel
1Score Scale. 8 = extremely intense, 7 = very intense, 6 = moderately intense, 5 = slightly
intense, 4 = slightly bland, 3 = moderately bland, 2 = very bland, 1 = extremely bland
2Score Scale. 8 = extremely tender, 7 = very tender, 6 = moderately tender, 5 = slightly tender, 4
= slightly tough, 3 = moderately tough, 2 = very tough, 1 = extremely tough.

Table 4-18. Age data for consumer sensory panelists evaluating goat ribs containing topical
spice rub only and a combination of marinade and spice rub and stored at 4 10C for
42 days


<18
4.9%


18-29
78.1%


30-:
6.1


Age group (years)
39 40-49
% 6.1%


>50
4.8%


Overall
100%


Paramet
Goat fla
intensity


Overall
tender


Day 35
DP
5.3
5.2
4.9
DP
5.5
5.6
6.0


Day 42
DP
5.5
4.0
4.6
DP
5.0
6.0
6.0









Table 4-19. Consumer sensory panel scores for evaluating goat ribs containing topical spice rub
only, and a combination of marinade and spice rub and stored at 4 + 10C for 42 days
Parameter Treatment Sample
Goat Flavor Goat meat + Spice rub 5.9
Intensity1 Goat meat + Spice rub + 6.8a
Marinade
Overall Flavor2 Goat meat + Spice rub 5.8
Goat meat + Spice rub + 6.8 a
Marinade
Texture3 Goat meat + Spice rub 5.7a
Goat meat + Spice rub + 6.2 a
Marinade
Overall Goat meat + Spice rub 5.8b
Acceptance4 Goat meat + Spice rub + 6.6 a
Marinade
Purchase Goat meat + Spice rub 3.4a
Intent5 Goat meat + Spice rub + 2.9b
Marinade
a- means in same row with different superscripts are significantly different (P < 0.05). Each
mean value represents four measurements.
Score Scale: 1 = Dislike extremely, 2 = Dislike very much, 3 = Dislike moderately, 4 = Dislike
slightly, 5 = Neither like or dislike, 6= Like slightly, 7 = Like moderately, 8 = Like very much, 9
= Like extremely
2Score Scale. 1 = Dislike extremely, 2 = Dislike very much, 3 = Dislike moderately, 4 = Dislike
slightly, 5 = Neither like or dislike, 6= Like slightly, 7 = Like moderately, 8 = Like very much, 9
= Like extremely
3Score Scale. 1 = Dislike extremely, 2 = Dislike very much, 3 = Dislike moderately, 4 = Dislike
slightly, 5 = Neither like or dislike, 6= Like slightly, 7 = Like moderately, 8 = Like very much, 9
= Like extremely
4Score Scale. 1 = Dislike extremely, 2 = Dislike very much, 3 = Dislike moderately, 4 = Dislike
slightly, 5 = Neither like or dislike, 6= Like slightly, 7 = Like moderately, 8 = Like very much, 9
= Like extremely
Score Scale. 1 =Definitely Would, 2 = Probably Would, 3 = Might or Might Not, 4 = Probably
Would Not, 5 = Definitely Would Not.










CHAPTER 5
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

Objectives of this study were to develop refrigerated value-added vacuum packaged raw

goat ribs, evaluate proximate composition, pH, sensory and microbiological characteristics of

four formulations on the raw goat rib formulations, develop a convenient and marketable

refrigerated vacuum packaged heat and serve goat meat rib product, and evaluate proximate

composition, pH, Thiobarbituric Acid Reactive Substances (TBARS), cost sensory and

microbiological characteristics of four heat and serve goat rib formulations. Four different

formulations were designed as treatments for the goat ribs. They were as following: the control

(plain goat ribs), treatment two (goat ribs marinated in apple cider vinegar), treatment three (goat

ribs with spice rub applied), and treatment four (marinated goat ribs with spice rub applied).

Typical formulations, processing and cooking steps for the development of the goat products

were followed.

Results from this study suggested that marinating and applying a spice rub to goat ribs

could produce an acceptable value added product. Except for Bacillus cereus being isolated

primarily from the spice rub blend, and sporadically on the goat meat, no organisms of public

health safety (Staphylcoccus aureus, Salmonella, Escherichia coli 0157:H7, and Listeria

monocytogenes) were found. The trained and consumer panelists found the products acceptable,

regarding goat flavor intensity, overall tenderness, texture (consumer panel only). Manufacturing

a heat and serve marinated vacuum packaged goat rib product could be a successful venture.

Consumers have a desire in the United States for convenience (cut up meats, marinated, ready to

eat meals) products. There is a high marketability potential for the raw marinated vacuum

packaged goat ribs and the heat and serve marinated vacuum packaged goat ribs. Consumers

should not be deterred because of the price. Shelf-life recommendation would be 21 days for the









marinated vacuum packaged raw goat ribs, and 42 days for the heat and serve vacuum packaged

goat ribs.









LIST OF REFERENCES

Aberle, E. D., Forrest, J. C., Gerrard, D. E., and Mills, E.W. 2001. Principles of Meat Science.
4th Edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, IA.

Alford, C., Strickland, J., Lewis, K., Simpson, S. 1998. Meat Goat Production in Georgia.
University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service. Available at:
http://pubs.caes.uga.edu/caespubs/pubcd/bll68-w.html Accessed: Dec. 2005.

Agricultural Marketing Resource Center. 2006. Meat Goats profile. Iowa State University.
Available at
http://www.agmrc.org/agmrc/commodity/livestock/goats/Meat+goats+profile.htm

AOAC. 2000. Official methods of analysis of the association of official analytical chemists, 17th
ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Washington, DC.

Babji, Y., Murthy, T.R.K., and Anjaneyulu, A.S.R. 2000. Microbial and sensory quality changes
in refrigerated minced goat meat stored under vacuum and in air. Small Rumin. Res. 36:
75-84.

Barbut, S., Josephson, D.B. and Maurer, A.J. 1985. Antioxidant properties of rosemary oleoresin
in turkey sausage. J. Food Sci. 50: 1356.

Bishov, S.J., Masuoka, Y. and Kapsalis, J.G. 1977. Antioxidant effect of spices, herbs and
protein hydrolyzates in freeze-dried model systems: Synergetic action with synthetic
phonolic antioxidants. J. Food Process. Preserv. 1:153.

Blickstad, E. 1983. Growth of lactic acid bacteria with special reference to meat and meat
products. Ph.D. thesis. Swedish Meat Research Institute, Kavlinge.

Bjorkroth, J. 2005. Microbiological ecology of marinated meat products. Meat Science 70: 477-
480.

Boland, M., Bosse., A. 2006. What is Value-added Agriculture? Agricultural Marketing
Resource Center. Available at:
http://www.agmrc.org/agmrc/business/gettingstarted/whatisvalueaddedag.htm. Accessed:
Nov. 2006.

Brennand, C. P. and Lindsay, R. C. 1982. Sensory discrimination of species-related meat flavors.
Lebensm. Wiss. u. Technol., 15: 249-252.

Breukink, H.R., Casey, N.H. 1989. Assessing the acceptability of processed goat meat. S. Afr. J.
Anim. Sci. 19: 76-80.

Browne, N. and Dowds, B.C.A. 2002. Acid stress in the food pathogen Bacillus cereus. J. of
Appl. Microbiol. 92: 404-414.









Calhoun, C. M., Eilert, S. J., Mandigo, R. W. 1996. Connective tissue/acidic phosphate preblend
effects on reduced fat frankfurters. J. of Food Science, Vol. 61 (2): pp. 459-464. Institute
of Food Technologists.

Casey, N. H., 1992. Goat meat in human nutrition. In: Proceedings of the V International

Casey, N. H., and Van Niekerk, W. A. .1988. The Boer Goat II. Growth, nutrient requirements,
carcass and meat quality. Small Ruminant Res., 1: 355-368.

Casey, N.H., Van Niekerk, W. A., Webb, E. C. 2003. Goat meat. Encyclopeadia of Food
Sciences and Nutrition. Academic Press, London, pp. 2937-2944.

Chang, S.S., Ostric-Matijasevic, B., Hsieh, O.A.L. and Huang, C.L. 1977. Natural antioxidant
from rosemary and sage. J. Food Sci. 42: 1102.

Chizzolini, R., Zanardi, E., Dorigoni, V., and Ghidini, S. 1999. Calorific value and cholesterol
content of normal and low-fat meat and meat products. Rev. Trends Food Sci. Technol.
10: 119-128.

Code of Federal Regulations. 2006. Terminology; Adulteration and Misbranding Standards. Title
9, Vol.2. 9CFR301.2. Available at:
http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20061500/edocket.access.gpo.gov/cfr 200
6/janqtr/9cfr301.2.htm. Accessed: Nov. 2006.

Coffey, L. 2002. Sustainable Goat Production: Meat Goats. Appropriate Technology Transfer for
Rural Areas. Available at: http://attra.ncat.org/attra-pub/PDF/meatgoat.pdf Accessed:
Oct. 2006.

Colomer-Rocher, F., Kirton, A. H, Mercer, G. J. K., and Dunganzich, D. M. 1992. Carcass
composition of New Zealand Saanen goats slaughtered at different weights. Small
Rumin. Res. 7: 161-173.

Cosenza, G. H., Williams, S. K., Johnson, D. D., Sims, C., and McGowan, C. H. 2003.
Development and evaluation of a cabrito smoked sausage product. Meat Sci. 64: 119-
124.

Cosenza, G. H., Williams, S. K., Johnson, D. D., Sims, C., and McGowan, C. H. 2003.
Development and evaluation of a fermented cabrito snack stick product. Meat Sci. 64(1):
51-57.

Cross, H. R., Leu, R., and Miller, M. F. 1987. Scope of warmed-over flavor and its importance to
the meat industry. Page 1 in Warmed-Over Flavor of Meat. A..J. St. Angelo and M. E.
Bailey, ed. Academic Press, Orlando, FL.

Degner, R. L., and Locascio, J. D. 1988. Distribution of goat meat in selected metropolitan
Florida markets. Industry Rep. 88:3, The Florida Agricultural Market Research Center,
Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville.










Egan, A.F. and Shay, B.J. 1984. The microbiology of vacuum packaged pork. Proceedings of the
30th European Meeting of Meat Research Workers, Bristol Meat Research Institute, 215-
216.

Eilert, S. .J. 2005. New packaging technologies for the 21st century. Meat Science, 71:122- 127.

Farris, M. 2003. Ethnic holidays best opportunity to market goats, Goat Rancher Feb:10-13.

Food and Agriculture Organization. 2003. Goat: population. Regional Office for Asia and the
Pacific. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/ad452e/ad452e2z.htm. Accessed
May 2007.

Forrest, J.C,.Aberle, E. D., Hedrick, H.B., Judge, M. D., Merkel, R. A. 1975. Principles of Meat
Science. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, CA

Foster, R. J. 2004. "Meating" Consumer Expectations. Food Product Design. Available at:
http://www.foodproductdesign.com/articles/1204CS.html .Virgo Publishing, Phoenix, AZ

Fraser, R. 2004. The market for goat meat in Alabama. Alabama A&M University. Available at:
http://www.ams.usda.gov/TMD/FSMIP/FY2002/AL0356.pdf Accessed April 2006.

Gadiyaram, K. M., and Kannan, G. 2004. Comparison of textural properties of low-fat chevon,
beef, pork, and mixed-meat sausages. S. Afr. J. Anima. Sci. 34(Suppl.1): 168-170.

Gill, C.O. and Newton, K.G. 1981. Microbiology of DFD meat. In D.E. Hood & P.V. Tarrants
(Eds.), The problem of dark-cutting in beef (pp. 305-327). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff.

Gipson, T. A., 1999. Demand for goat meat: implications for the future of the industry.
Proceedings of the 14th Annual Goat Field Day, Langston, OK, pp. 23-29.

Gipson, T. A. 1999. Demand for goat meat: implications for the Future of the Industry. In
Demand for Goat Meat: Implications for the Future of the Industry, Langston University,
E (Kika) de la Gaza Institute for Goat Research,
http://www2.1uresext.edu/goats/library/field/goatmeatdemand99.htm. Accessed
December 18, 2005

Grau, F.H. 1980. Inhibition of the anaerobic growth of brochothrix thermosphacta by lactic acid.
Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 40: 443-446.

Grau, F.H. 1981. Role of pH, lactate and anaerobiosis in controlling the growth of some
fermentative gram negative bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 42: 1043-1050.

Hamm, R. 1960. Biochemistry of meat hydration. Adv. Food Res. 10:355.

Hamm, R. 1982. Uber das Wasserbindungsvermogen des Fleisches. Fleischerei 33: 590-599.









Hansen, R. 2003. Goat industry profile. Agric. Marketing Resource Center, Iowa State Univ.,
Ames.

Hornstein, I. and. Crowe, P. F. 1963. Meat flavor: Lamb. J. Agric. Food Chem., 11: 147-149.

Houlihan, C.M., Ho, C.T. and Chang, S.S. 1984. Elucidation of the chemical structure of a noel
antioxidant rosemaridiphenol, isolated from rosemary. J. Amer. Oil Chem. So. 61:1036.

Houlihan, C.M., Ho, C.T. and Chang, S.S. 1985. The structure of rosmariquinone- A new
antioxidant isolated from Rosmarinus officinalis L. J. Amer. Oil Chem. Soc. 62:96

IBISWorld Industry Report. 2005. Goat Farming in the US: 11242. Available at:
http://www.ibisworld.com/industry/retail. aspx?indid=61&chid= 1

Information Resources Inc., 2002. What do Americans really eat? Consumer survey. Information
Resources Inc., Chicago, II. Available at:
http://www.cpgnetwork.com/public/global/home/glo thoughteat.htm. Accessed: Nov.
2005.

Jacobson, M. and Koehler, H. H.. 1963. Components of the flavor of lamb. Agric. Food Chem.,
11:336-339.

James, N. A., and Berry, B. W. 1997. Use of chevon in the development of low-fat meat
products. J. Anim. Sci. 75: 571- 577.

Jimenez-Colmenero, F. Carballo, J., and Cofrades, S. 2001. Healthier meat and meat products:
their role as functional foods. Meat Science 59: 5-13.

Johnson, D. W. 1989. An evaluation of Florida oat meat: New elements and opportunities.
Proceedings of Meat Goat Production Conference, Tallahassee, Fl.

Johnson, D. D. 1995. Florida's Meat Goat Industry: Composition and Quality of Goat Meat
Produced in Florida. University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of
Food and Agricultural Sciences. Circular 1153.

Johnson, D. D., McGowan, C. H., Nurse, G., and. Anous, M. R., 1995. Breed type and sex
effects on carcass traits, composition and tenderness of young goats. Small Rum. Res. 17:
57-63.

Kahan, T. B., Williams, S. K., Mobley, R., Jakes, A., Djeri, N., Ruiz, A., Sarjeant., K. The
evaluation of Nonmeat Ingredients to Improve the Acceptability of Chevon Products for
American consumers. Unpublished manuscript, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL.

Kannan, G., Kouakou, B, and Gelaye, S. 2001. Color changes reflecting myoglobin and lipid
oxidation in chevon cuts during refrigerated display. Small Rumin. Res. 42: 67- 75.










Ke, P.J., Cervantes, E. and Robles-Martinez, C. 1984. Determination ofthiobarbituric acid
reactive substances (TBARS) in fish by an improved distillation-spectrophotometric
method. J. Sci. Food Agric. 37: 1248-1254.

Kirton, H.1988. Characteristics of goat meat, including carcass quality and methods of slaughter.
Goat Meat Production in Asia. Proceedings of a Workshop, Tando Jam, Pakistan,. IDRC,
Ottawa, Canada, March 13-18, 1988 pp. 87-99.

Luginbuhl, J-M. 1998. Breeds of Goats for Meat Goat Production and Production Traits. North
Carolina State University. Available at:
http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/an_sci/extension/animal/meatgoat/MGBreed.htm Accessed:
Dec. 2005.

Luginbuhl, J-M. 2000. Meat Goats Extension Animal Husbandry. North Carolina State
University. Available at:
http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/an_sci/extension/animal/meatgoat/ahgoatsindex.html
Accessed: Dec. 2005.

Madruga, M. S., Arruda, S. G. B., Narain, N., and Souza, J. G. 2000. Castration and slaughter
age effects on panel assessment and aroma compounds of the "mestico" goat meat. Meat
Sci. 56: 117- 125.

Mahgoub, O., Kadim, I. T., Al-Saqry, N. M., and Al-Busaidi, R. M. 2004. Effects of body
weight and sex on carcass tissue distribution in goats. Meat Sci. 67: 577-585.

McGowan. 2003. Development and evaluation of a cabrito smoked sausage product. Meat Sci.
64: 119-124.

McKenna, D. R., Strachan, D. S., Miller, R. K., Acuff, G. R., and Savell, J. W. 2003. Cranberry
Juice Marinade Improves Sensory and Microbiological Properties of Vacuum-packaged
Lamb Chops. J. Muscle Foods. 14:207-220.

McKenzie-Jakes, A. 2004. "Markets for Goat Meat". Florida A&M University. Available at:
http://smallfarms.ifas.ufl.edu/Liverstock/goats.htm. Accessed: Dec 2005.

McMillin, K. W., and Brock, A. P. 2005. Production practices and processing for value-added
goat meat. J. Anim. Sci. 83 (E. Suppl.): E57- E68.

Melton, S. L. 1990. Effects of feeds on flavor of red meat: a review. J. Anim. Sci. 68: 4421-
4435.

Mize, J., and Kelly, J. 2004. America's dynamic meat case. Cryovac Retail Wrap-up, December.

O'Mahony, M. 1986. Sensory evaluation of food: Statistical Methods and Procedures. Marcel
Dekker, Inc., New York, NY.









Owen, J. E., Norman, G. A., and Jones, N. S. .D.. 1978. Studies on the meat production
characteristics of Botswana goats and sheep. Part III. Carcass tissue composition and
distribution. Meat Sci. 2: 59-74.

Pearson, A. M. and Gillette, T. A. 1996. Processed meats. Pages 2 and 210- 241. 3rd ed.
Chapman and Hall, New York, NY.

Phelps, O., McMillin, K.W., Gebrelul, S., Mellad, K.E., Simon, G., Dawkins, L., Pinkerton, F.,
and Windham, M. 1999. Carcass traits and sensory evaluation of meat from goats of
differing breeds, ages, and conformation. J. Anim. Sci. (Suppl. 1): 14 (Abstr.)

Pinkerton, F., Scarfe, D., and Pinkerton, B. 1991. Meat Goat Production and Marketing. No. M-
01. Langston University Goat Research Extension. Available at:
http://www.luresext.edu/goats/library/factsheets/m01.htm Accessed: Dec. 2005.

Pinkerton, F. 2002. Demand for goat meat still growing. Goat Rancher July: 31-34.

Pinkerton, F. and Harwell, L. 2002. Marketing channels for meat goats. Accessed at

http://www.clemson.edu/agronomy/goats/handbook/market.html. Dec 2005.

Pinkerton, F., and McMillin, K. 2005. Goat population grows, still can't match demand. Goat
Rancher March:7-19.

Rhee, K.S. 1978. Minimization of further lipid oxidation in the distillation 2-Thiobarbituric acid
test of fish and meat. J. Food Sci. 43: 1176.

Rhee, K. S., Myers, C. E., and Waldrom, D. F. 2003. Sensory properties and lipid oxidation in
aerobically refrigerated cooked ground goat meat. Meat Science 66: 189-194.

Rhee, K. S., Myers, C. E., and. Waldron, D. F. 2003. Consumer sensory evaluation of plain and
seasoned goat meat and beef products. Meat Science 65: 785- 789.

Riley, R.R., Savell, J.W., Johnson, D.D., Smith, G.C., and Shelton, M. 1989. Carcass grades,
rack composition and tenderness of sheep and goats as influenced by market class and
breed. Small Rumin. Res. 2: 273-280.

Romans, J. R., Costelllo, W. J., Carlson, C. W., Greaser, M. L., and Jones, K. W. 1994. The
Meat We Eat. Thirteenth Edition, Interstate Publishers, Inc. p.27-43.

Sams, A. R. 2001. Poultry Meat Processing. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, Florida.

SAS Institute Inc. 2002. SAS User 's Guide: Statistics. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC.

Schonfeldt, H. C., Naude, R. T., Bok, W., van Heerden, S. M., and Smit, R. 1993a. Flavour-and
tenderness- related quality characteristics of goat and sheep meat. Meat Sci. 34: 363-379.









Schonfeldt, H. C., Naude, R. T., Bok, W., van Heerden, S. M., and Smit, R. 1993b.Cooking and
juiciness-related quality characteristics of goat and sheep meat. Meat Sci. 34: 381-394.

Sen, A. R., Santra, A., and Karim, S. A. 2004. Carcass yield, composition and meat quality
attributes of sheep and goat under semiarid conditions. Meat Sci. 66: 757-763.

Shahidi, F. 1994. Flavor of Meat and Meat Products. First edition. Chapman & Hall.

Shahidi, F. 1998. Flavor of meat, meat products, and seafoods. Blackie Academic &
Professional, London, New York.

Shaw, B.G., Harding, C.D. and Taylor, A.A. 1980. The microbiology and storage stability of
vacuum packed lamb. Journal of Food Technology 15: 397-405.

Sheradin, R., Hoffman, L. C., and Ferreira, A. V. 2003a. Meat quality of Boer goat kids and
Mutton Merino lambs 1 commercial yields and chemical composition. Anim. Sci. 76: 63-
71.

Sheradin, R., Hoffman, L. C., and Ferreira, A. V. 2003b. Meat quality of Boer goat kids and
Mutton Merino lambs 2 sensory meat evaluation. Anim. Sci. 76: 73-79.

Sinha, B. K. and Mandal, L. N. 1977. Studies on bacteriological quality of market meat and
public health importance. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 47: 478.

Sloan, A. E. 2003. What, when, and where Americans eat: 2003. Food Technol. 57(8): 48-50, 52,
54, 56, 58-60, 62-66.

Small Farms Research Center, Alabama A & M University. 2005. Briefing on Goat Issues. Risk
Management, Issue 3.

Smith, G. C., Pike, M. I., and Carpenter, Z. L. 1974. Comparison of the palatability of goat meat
and meat from four other animal species. Journal of Food Science, 39: 1145- 1146.

Smith, G. C., Pike, M. I., Carpenter, Z. L., and Shelton, M. 1978. Effect of age and quality level
on the palatability of goat meat. J. Anim. Sci. 46: 1229-1235.

Soroka, W. 2002. Fundamentals of Packaging Technology. Institute of Packaging Professionals.
Naperville, Illinois.

Srivastava, K. C., Paz, A. A., Saridakis, H. O., Popper, I. O. P., and S.R.P. De Castro, S. R. P..
1981. Microbiology of Frozen Goat Meat and Toxin Production by Bacillus cereus
Isolated therefrom. Zbl. Bakt. Hyg., Abt. Orig. B 174: 125-132.

Swize, S.S., Harris, K. B., Savell, J. W., and Cross, H. R. 1992. Cholesterol content of lean and
fat from beef, pork, and lamb cuts. J. Food Compos. Anal. 5: 160-167.









Tarladgis, B.G., Watts, B.M. and Younathan, M.T. 1960. A distillation method for the
quantitative determination of malonaldehyde in rancid food. J. Amer. Oil Chem. Soc. 37:
44.

The Goat Industry: Structure, Concentration, Demand and Growth. USDA, Animal and Plant
Health Inspection Service. Electronic Report from APHIS (2004). Accessed in July
2006.

The Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences. 2000. Agricultural
Alternatives: Meat Goat Production. Available at:
http://agalternatives.aers.psu.edu/livestock/meatgoat/meatgoat.pdf Accessed: Dec. 2005.

Toledo, R. T. 2001. Marination technologies. IFT Annual Meeting- News Orleans, Louisiana.
Available at: http://ift.confex.com/ift/2001/techprogram/paper 6024.htm Accessed: Dec.
2005.

Tompkins, R.B. 1986. Microbiology of ready to eat meat and poultry products. Advances in
meat research. Vol. 2. AVI Publishing Co. p 89-121.

Tshabalala, P.A., Strydom, P.E., Webb, E.C. and de Kock, H.L. 2003. Meat quality of designated
South African indigenous goat and sheep breeds. Meat Sci. 65: 563-570.

USDA. 2004. Announcement of value-added producer grant application deadlines and funding
levels. USDA Rural Business- Cooperative Service. Fed. Reg. 69: 33349.

USDA AMS. 2006. Meat Goat: Selection, Carcass Evaluation & Fabrication Guide. Available at:
http://www.lsuagcenter.com/NR/rdonlyres/B8FE3706-64DC-417F-A592-
B8DEC14B4D9F/27779/pub2951MeatGoatPubLOWRES.pdf Accessed: June 2006

USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service, 2005. The Goat Industry: Structure,
Concentration, Demand and Growth. Available at:
http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs/ceah/cei/bi/emergingmarketconditionfiles/goatreport0908
05.pdf Accessed: June 2006.

USDA Economic Research Service. 2007. Retail prices for beef, pork, and poultry cuts eggs, and
dairy products. Available at:
http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/meatpricespreads/Data/cuts.xls. Accessed : June 25, 2007.

USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service. 2006. Goat from Farm to Table. Meat Preparation
Fact Sheets. Available at:
http://www.fsis.usda.gov/FactSheets/GoatfromFarm toTable/index.asp. Accessed:
May 15, 2006.

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2002. Census of Agriculture 2002. Available at
http://www.nass.usda.gov Accessed Oct. 2006.









USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2006. Livestock Inventory Up, USDA Reports:
Cattle, Sheep and Goat Numbers on the Rise. Available at:
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/SheeGoat//2000s/2006/SheeGoat-01-27-
2006.pdf. Accessed: Feb 2006.

USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2007. Sheep and Goats. Available at:
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/current/SheeGoat/SheeGoat-02-02-2007.txt.
Accessed May 2007.

USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference, Release 19. 2006. Raw Goat, Cooked
and Roasted goat. Available at:
http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp/Data/SR19/reports/srl9fgl7.pdf. Accessed May
2007.

Watts, B.M. 1962. Meat products. In "Symposium on Foods: Lipids and Their Oxidation", p.
202. H.W. Schultz, E.A. Day and R.O. Sinnhuber (Ed). AVI Publishing Co., Westport,
CN.

Webb, E. C., Casey, N. H., Simela, L. 2005. Goat meat quality. Small Rumin. Res. 60: 153-166.

Wheaton, J. E., Carlson, K. M., Windels, H. F., and Johnson, L. J. 1993. CIDR: A New
Progesterone Releasing Intravaginal Device for induction of Estrus and Cycle Control in
Sheep and Goats. Animal Reproduction Science 33: 127-142.

Wikipedia Foundation. 2006. Domestic Goat. Wikipedia The Free Encyclopedia. Available at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goat. Accessed: Nov 18, 2006.

Wikipedia Foundation. 2007. Domestic Goat: Goat Uses. Available at:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestic_goat#Meat. Accessed: May 2007.

Winrock International. 1986. Strategies for expanding goat meat production, processing, and
marketing in the southeastern United States. Winrock International, Morriton, AR.

Young, O.A., Zhang, S.X., Farouk, M.M., Podmore, C. 2005. Effects of pH adjustment with
phosphates on attributes and functionalities of normal and high pH beef. Meat Science
70: 133-139.









BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH

Noufoh Djeri was born in Bassar, Togo in 1978. She graduated from the Institute of

Genech, France in 1997. In 2005, she received her Bachelor of Science degree from the

Department of Animal Sciences, University of Florida. She started her master's research in 2005

after receiving a departmental graduate assistantship for her studies. She will earn her Master of

Science degree in August 2007. After graduation, Noufoh plans to pursue a Doctor of Philosophy

degree under Dr. Sally K. Williams' supervision.





PAGE 1

1 DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF RAW AND PRE-COOKED VACUUM PACKAGED GOAT MEAT PRODUCTS By NOUFOH DJERI A THESIS PRESENTED TO THE GRADUATE SCHOOL OF THE UNIVERSITY OF FLOR IDA IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF SCIENCE UNIVERSITY OF FLORIDA 2007

PAGE 2

2 2007 Noufoh Djeri

PAGE 3

3 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The author wishes to show her gratitude to Dr. Sally K. Williams, her supervisory committee chairperson for opportunity, guidance, a nd support. She also extends her gratitude to the other committee members, Dr. Dwain Johnson and Dr. Ray Mobley, fo r their collaboration and advice. She is grateful to the Florida A& M University Cooperative Extension and Outreach Programs for their financial support. The author also wishes to extend her apprecia tion to Dr. Keawin Caron Sarjeant for his friendship, support, and encouragement. To the employees of the Meat Science laboratory, and fellow graduate students, and Ty rell Kahan, she offers recogniti on for the assistance provided. Appreciation and love are expressed to Koffi and Amoye Djeri, the au thors parents, and to her siblings Ikpindi, Gbati, and Adja Djeri for their constant support. She thanks Yvette ZieBonzongo for her friendship, and motherly advice. She wishes lastly to thank God for his love and guidance.

PAGE 4

4 TABLE OF CONTENTS page ACKNOWLEDGMENTS...............................................................................................................3 LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................. ..........6 ABSTRACT....................................................................................................................... ..............8 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION..................................................................................................................10 2 LITERATURE REVIEW.......................................................................................................11 Meat Goats..................................................................................................................... .........11 Availability and Demand........................................................................................................12 Nutritional Comparison of Meat Goats and Red Meat...........................................................14 Microbiology of Goat Meat....................................................................................................16 Production of Meat Goats.......................................................................................................17 Marketing of Goat Meat.........................................................................................................19 Acceptability of Goat Meat....................................................................................................20 Value-added Product Technology..........................................................................................21 Packaging Systems for Value-added Goat Products..............................................................25 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS...........................................................................................28 Phase 1: Formulation of Marinade and Topical Spice Rub....................................................28 Sample Preparation..........................................................................................................28 Sample Treatment............................................................................................................29 Preparation of the Marinate and Spice Rub for application to the Goat Loin Chops.............29 Phase 2: Production and Evaluation of Vacuum packaged Raw Goat Ribs...........................30 Sample Preparation..........................................................................................................30 Sample Treatment............................................................................................................30 Microbiological Analysis and pH....................................................................................31 Sensory Evaluation..........................................................................................................32 Proximate Analysis..........................................................................................................33 Cost Analysis.................................................................................................................. .34 Statistical Analysis..........................................................................................................34 Phase 3: Production and Evaluation of Cookin-Bag Heat and Serve Barbecue Goat Ribs........................................................................................................................... ..........34 Sample Preparation..........................................................................................................34 Sample Treatment............................................................................................................35 Microbiological Analysis and pH....................................................................................36 Sensory Panel Analysis...................................................................................................37 Consumer Sensory Panel Analysis..................................................................................39 Proximate Analysis..........................................................................................................40 Cost Analysis.................................................................................................................. .40

PAGE 5

5 Statistical Analysis..........................................................................................................40 Thiobarbituric Acid Reactive Substances Analysis........................................................41 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION.............................................................................................44 Marinated Vacuum Packaged Raw Goat Ri bs refrigerated for 21 days at 4 1oC................44 Microbiological Analysis................................................................................................44 Fecal coliforms.........................................................................................................44 Aerobic plate counts.................................................................................................44 Psychrotroph counts.................................................................................................45 Anaerobic plate counts.............................................................................................45 Product Analysis..............................................................................................................46 The pH analysis........................................................................................................46 Proximate analysis....................................................................................................46 Cost analysis.............................................................................................................47 Trained Sensory Evaluation............................................................................................47 Marinated Vacuum Packaged Heat and Serve Go at Ribs refrigerated for 42 days at 4 1oC.............................................................................................................................. .........49 Microbiological Analysis................................................................................................49 Aerobic plate counts.................................................................................................49 Psychrotroph counts.................................................................................................49 Anaerobic counts......................................................................................................50 Lactic Acid Bacteria counts.....................................................................................50 Spice blend analysis.................................................................................................51 Product Analysis..............................................................................................................51 The pH measurements..............................................................................................51 Proximate analysis....................................................................................................52 Cost analysis.............................................................................................................52 Thiobarbituric Acid Reactive Substances................................................................53 Trained Sensory Evaluation............................................................................................53 Consumer Sensory Evaluation........................................................................................54 Consumer Sensory Panel Analysis..................................................................................54 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS.....................................................................................64 LIST OF REFERENCES............................................................................................................. ..66 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH.........................................................................................................75

PAGE 6

6 LIST OF TABLES Table page 3-1 Weight and sex data for Spanish, Boer Cr ossbred Meat Goats purchased from Eunice Cornelius farm................................................................................................................. ..42 3-2 Goat Meat Marinade......................................................................................................... .42 3-3 Marinade formulations for Goat meat ribs: Phase 1..........................................................43 3-4 Spice Blend Rub for Goat meat ribs..................................................................................43 3-5 Weight and sex data for Spanish Boer Crossbred Meat Goats purchased from Norma Tillman farm................................................................................................................... ...43 4-1 Mean fecal coliform counts for vacuum packaged raw goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 21 days........................................................................................................................ .......56 4-2 Mean aerobic plate counts for vacuum packaged raw goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 21 days........................................................................................................................ .......56 4-3 Mean psychrotrophic counts on vacuum packaged raw goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 21 days........................................................................................................................ .......56 4-4 Mean anaerobic counts on vacuum pack aged raw goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 21 days........................................................................................................................... .........57 4-5 Mean pH values for vacuum packaged raw goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 21 days.........57 4-6 Proximate analysis for vacuum pack aged raw goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 21 days.....57 4-7 Trained sensory evaluation scores on overa ll tenderness and goat flavor intensity for vacuum packaged raw goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 21 days..........................................58 4-8 Comparative cost analysis for 100 kg batc hes of vacuum packaged raw goat ribs...........58 4-9 Mean total aerobic counts for refrigerated vacuum-packaged heat and serve goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 42 days..............................................................................................59 4-10 Mean total psychrotrophs counts for refr igerated vacuum-packaged heat and serve goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 42 days...............................................................................59 4-11 Mean total anaerobes counts for refriger ated vacuum-packaged heat and serve goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 42 days.......................................................................................59 4-12 Mean total lactic acid bacteria counts for refrigerated vacuum-packaged heat and serve goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 42 days.....................................................................60

PAGE 7

7 4-13 Mean pH values for refrigerated vacuum-p ackaged heat and serve goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 42 days............................................................................................................60 4-14 Mean proximate values for refrigerated vacuum-packaged heat and serve goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 42 days..............................................................................................60 4-15 Comparative cost analysis for 100 kg batc hes of vacuum packaged heat and serve goat ribs...................................................................................................................... ........61 4-16 Mean TBARS for refrigerated vacuum-packag ed heat and serve goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 42 days...............................................................................................................61 4-17 Mean trained sensory panel scores for goa t flavor intensity and overall tenderness for heat and serve goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 42 days.......................................................62 4-18 Age data for consumer sensory panelists evaluating goat ribs c ontaining topical spice rub only and a combination of marinade and spice rub and stored at 4 1oC for 42 days........................................................................................................................... .........62 4-19 Consumer sensory panel scores for evalua ting goat ribs contai ning topical spice rub only, and a combination of marinade and spice rub and stored at 4 1oC for 42 days.....63

PAGE 8

8 Abstract of Thesis Presen ted to the Graduate School of the University of Florida in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science DEVELOPMENT AND EVALUATION OF RAW AND PRE-COOKED VACUUM PACKAGED GOAT MEAT PRODUCTS By Noufoh Djeri August 2007 Chair: Sally K. Williams Major: Animal Sciences Production of value added raw and heat a nd serve goat meat products could increase demand, consumption, acceptability, and marketability of goat meat. The objectives of this study were to develop and evaluate proximate composition, pH, sensory and microbiological characteristics of refrigerated value-added vacu um packaged raw, and heat and serve goat rib products. Four goat rib formulations were eval uated for each product. The formulations were evaluated for each product. The formulations include d control (goat ribs, no additives), goat ribs in apple cider vinegar marinade, goat ribs with external only spice rub, and goat ribs in apple cider vinegar plus external spi ce rub. After formulation, all goat ribs are vacuum packaged and stored at 4 1oC for 21 days (raw goat rib products), and 42 days (heat and serve goat rib products). The products were analyzed for proximate composition, pH, microbiology (fecal coliforms, aerobic plate counts, ps ychrotroph counts, anaerobic plat e counts), cost analysis for both products. Thiobarbituric acid reactive substances and lactic acid bacteria analysis were conducted for the heat and serve products only. Tr ained and consumer panelists evaluation were performed. Overall tenderness and goat flavor intensity was eval uated for both products (raw and heat and serve goat ribs). Consumer panelists evaluated goat flavor in tensity, overall flavor, texture, overall acceptance, and the purchase intent as sensory characteristics.

PAGE 9

9 The trained panelists found differences am ong the four treatments regarding overall tenderness (vacuum packaged raw goat ribs). Ov erall tenderness varied from slightly tender to moderately tender. The ribs were rated slightly tender, and the marinatedspice rub ribs were rated moderately tender. The pH values varied between 5.79 and 6.40. pH values for treatments with goat ribs plus marinade and goat ribs plus marinade with externally applied spice rub were significantly lower (P < 0.05) than va lues for control, and goat ribs plus externally applied spice rub. Moisture values varied between 65.37% a nd 67.64% and were not si gnificantly different between treatments. No significan t increase (P > 0.05) in aerobic plate counts was revealed over time, through 21 days storage, for the goat ribs th at were marinated or marinated and rubbed with spice. A similar trend was observed for psyc hrotrophic microorganisms. The addition of marinade with and without the spice rub resu lted in significantly lowe r (P > 0.05) anaerobic counts.

PAGE 10

10 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION Goat meat is one of the most consumed re d meats worldwide, except for the United States. According to the United States Depart ment of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA NASS, 2006), the dairy, fiber, meat, 4-H, industrial, and biotech goat inventory in the United States accounted for 2.93 million head in 2007, a boost of 5 percent when compared to 2006. In addition, meat and all other goats (meat, 4-H, industrial, and biotech) accounted for 2.40 million head (5 % increase from 2006). The demand for goat meat is on the rise. This trend was extens ively researched and documented in Florida (Degner and Locascio, 1988, Johnson, 1989). The increase was mainly due to the growth of ethnic populations and also the awareness of health conscious consumers of lower fat in chevon compared to other red meats. In addition, consumers also demand convenient products that will require the least time in the kitchen. This research project had for goal to a dd value to goat meat by either vacuum packaging a marinated raw goat rib product, or vacuum packaging a marinated heat and serve goat product rib. The consumer will only have to bake and microwave or boil the valueadded goat rib products. The object ives of this study were to develop refrigerated valueadded vacuum packaged raw goat ribs, evalua te proximate, pH, sensory and microbiological characteristics of four different formulati ons of raw goat ribs, develop a convenient and marketable refrigerated vacuum packaged heat and serve goat meat rib product, and evaluate proximate, pH, TBARS, sensory and microbiologi cal characteristics of the heat and serve products. Cost analysis was performed on the vacuum packaged raw and heat and serve goat ribs to determine affordability for the consumers.

PAGE 11

11 CHAPTER 2 LITERATURE REVIEW Meat Goats Capra aegagrus hircus (domestic goat) is a member of the bovine family and is closely related to the sheep. Capra aegagrus hircus is one of the oldest domesticated species. Cave art 10,000 to 20,000 years ago indicates that goats were common and important (USDA FSIS, 2006). For thousands of years, they have been utilized for their milk, meat, hair, and skin all over the world. Goat meat, called chevon (from the French word for the animal chvre), is said to be similar in taste to veal or venison, depending on the age of the goat (Wikipedia Foundation, 2006). Except for the United States, goat is one of the most consumed red meats worldwide. However, it is being gradually introduced to co nsumers in the United States. Chevon has become an established term for goat meat, originally ap plied to Angora goat meat and emanates from the United States. Cabrito, a term de rived from Spanish refers to goat kid, and is a delicacy in Central and South Americas (C asey, 1992). Religious preferences social customs and dietary considerations shape the consump tion patterns in the U.S.A. Immigrants from Asia and Africa consume more goat meat than immigrants from Europe, especially developed Europe. (USDA, APHIS, 2005). Native African-American and Caucas ian populations tend to consume goat meat on special occasions such as 4th of July, Ea ster, and Muslim holidays (Fraser, 2004). The demand for goat meat peaks during Easter, accord ing to the National Agricultural Statistics Service (NASS) weekly data (Gipson, 1999) According to the Food and Agriculture Organization (2003), goat population worldwide accounted for 743,374,300 head, with 440,291,400 produced by developing countries. The st ate of Florida produced 65, 000 meat and other goats at the end of 2006. There was an increa se of 8.33% in the Florida meat and other goat

PAGE 12

12 production between 2005 and 2006 (USDA NASS, 2007). The patterns of consumption also vary by ethnic and cultural pref erences. Muslims and Jews require th eir meat slaughtered to religious standards. Most prefer their meat fresh but many are willing to accept frozen imported meat (Fraser, 2004). The weight and gender of the goat is determined by the holiday (Agricultural Marketing Resource Center, 2006). Milk-fed kid weighing 13.60 kilograms is ideal for Easter, while male or female kids weighing 27.21 kilogr ams are desired for Ramadan (Muslim holiday). Weights between 20.41 and 54.43 kilograms are al so accepted for Ramadan. Goats weighing 27.21 to 36.28 kilograms are marketed during Cari bbean, and Chinese holiday, while the Latino market desires a suckling kid (cabrito) weighing 9.07 to 15.87 kilograms. (Agricultural Marketing Resource Center, 2006). There are various ways to prepare goat meat all around the world. Goat meat could be stew ed, baked, grilled, barbecued, minced, canned or transformed into sausage, or jerky. (Wikipedia Foundation, 2007). The value of goat meat in the United States is affected by the seasonal availability of live goats, with the price per pound of goat meat be ing highest in late wi nter and early spring (Pinkerton and McMillin, 2005). The highest price also coincide with religious and ethnic holiday dates (Pinkerton, 2002) wh ereas the lowest prices are in the summer when the demand is least and supply is gr eatest (Farris, 2003). Availability and Demand The growing meat goat industry has found a pe rfect environment in the Southeastern United States. The demand is on the rise. Acco rding to the United St ates Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service (USDA NASS, 2006), the dairy, fiber, meat, 4-H, industrial, and biotech goat inventory in the United States accounted for 2.93 million head in 2007, a boost of 5% when compared to 2006. In addition, meat goats used for 4-H, industrial, and biotechnology accounted for 2.40 million head (5% increase from 2006). According to the

PAGE 13

13 2002 USDA NASS Agricultural Census, Texas ha d the largest populati on of goats (47%) reported in the U.S. invent ory (USDA NASS, 2006). The IB ISWorld (2005) industry report revealed that there are four segments that form the goat industry: goat me at (meat processors), mohair and cashmere (textile mills), breeding go ats (other farmers), and goat milk sale. The major segment is constituted by goats sold for slaughter purposes. The goat industry is located in two major regi ons in the United States: South West region (52.6% of the goat population), and the South East region (23.1% of the goat population) (IBISWorld, 2005). According to Gipson (1999), th e Southeastern United States is well positioned geographically to supply goats to Flor ida and urban Northeast states (area of high demand). Texas is by far the major state for goat fa rming (47.2% of all goats in the U.S.). Texas suitability to raising goats (mild dry climate, moun tain terrain, low average cost of land) allowed the production of meat, dairy, a nd fiber goats (IBISWorld, 2005) In 1977, the first year that USDA began keeping st atistics for goats sla ughtered at federally inspected plants, approximately 35,000 goats were slaughtered nationwid e. Total federally inspected goats have increased from 81,000 h ead in 1983 to 666,000 head in 2004. Growth has been steady since 1983, with Texas and New Jersey leading the federally inspected slaughter capacity (USDA APHIS, 2005). Between 1997 a nd 2002, the meat and other goats (4-H, Industrial, Biotech) segments grew 87% in inventory, while the to tal growth in population for the entire goat industry was 23% (U SDA NASS, 2002). 4-H goats are used for youth education in animal health, care and constr uctive self-image. Industrial go ats are used for ground cover management, as pack animals to control weeds an d allow access in remote areas of wilderness. Biotech goats are used for the production of biotechnological products (USDA APHIS, 2005). Meat and other goats accounted for 51,500 head in 2005, and increased to 55,000 the following

PAGE 14

14 year in the state of Florida (USDA NASS, 2006 ). USDA APHIS (2005) estimated the total goat slaughter in 2003 to be 666 thousand head. Fe derally inspected goat slaughter has been dominated by Texas (18%) and New Jersey (30%). In Florida (2004 fiscal year), 15,093 head of goats were slaughtered in federally inspected facilities (USDA APHIS, 2005). This increasing demand for goat meat was made known in a national benchmark study funded by Winrock International (1986) in S trategies for Expanding Goat Meat Production, Processing, and Marketing in the Southeastern U.S. This trend was exte nsively researched and documented in Florida (Degner and Locascio, 1988, Johnson, 1989). The increase was mainly due to the growth of ethnic populations and also the awareness of health conscious consumers of lower fat in chevon compared to other red m eats. The three largest goat consuming ethnic populations are Hispanics, Muslims and the peopl es from the Caribbean. The strongest demand for goat meat is along the eastern coast, Southern California, Florida, De troit, and the northeast region stretching from Washington, D.C. to Boston (McKenzie-Jakes, 2004). The demand for goat meat in the United States is concentrated in areas with et hnic populations that use goat as a traditional staple (Hansen, 2003). Urban demogra phic growth is proporti onally related to the urban consumption of goat meat. However, beca use of low innovation, urba n inhabitants prepare goat meat with difficulty. The ability of manuf acturers to process goats into products, and the capability of the farmers to supply goats consistently influence the availability of products (IBISWorld, 2005). Nutritional Comparison of Meat Goats and Red Meat Goat meat is a high quality protein source, and is considered red meat. A study conducted by University of Florida and Florida Agricultural and Mechan ical University (Johnson 1995) employed three meat goat breeds of six to eight mont hs of age: Florida natives, Nubian x Florida natives,and Spanish x Florida natives. There was no significant effect from the sex or the breed

PAGE 15

15 type on carcass yield. Even though breed did not have an effect on fat-free yiel d, sex class did influence fat-free lean deposition where intact male goat carcass had 3 percent more fat-free muscle mass than castrated and female goat car casess (Johnson, 1995). Breed type and sex class affected the total fat deposition on the goat carcasses (Johnson,1995; Mahgoub et al., 2004). Colomer-Rocher et al. (1992) reported goat carc asses from intact males to have higher contents of muscle and lower contents of fat than carcasses from females. A nutrient profile analysis of the goat meat carcass composites suggested a similarity to chicken in total gram s of fat, percent of calories from fat, and cholesterol. Iron content was 2.2mg for broiled goat meat and beef, and 1.1mg for chicken. (Johnson,1995). Kids (goats under a year of age) are often slaughtered at 3 to 5 months of age and weighing from 25 to 50 pounds. Kids do not store si gnificant body fat until they are about a year old. The meat of older goats is darker and less tender, but juicier a nd full of flavor when compared to kids meat. Goat tend to have lower dresssing percenta ge and different carcass proportions when compared to sheep (Webb et al., 2005). Goat me at from Angora (no age) was found to be less tender, have more residues, shear force resistance, collagen cont ent than Boer goats (no age) (Schnfeldt et al., 1993a,b). In c ontrast, Smith et al. (1978) found th at loin chops and leg roasts from Angora and Spanish goats from the same age ha d the same juiciness. He also suggested that conformation and breed may have a consequence on the effect of age on meat properties. Low conformation leg slices from yearling goats and kids were less tender than leg meat from kid goats with medium or high conformation (Phelp s et al., 1999). Mestio or hybrid goat age varying from 175 to 310 days decreased organolep tic properties such as tenderness, appearance, aroma, flavor, juiciness, and overall palatability (Mad ruga et al., 2000).

PAGE 16

16 Sen et al. (2004) also reporte d that goat meat was less te nder than sheep meat, although juiciness, and overall palatability were not di fferent. Casey et al. (2003) reported preferential order in the deposition of adipose tissue in goat with visceral fat first, followed by intermuscular, subcutaneous and intramuscular fat. The highly variable fat content is being influenced by factors such as age, sex, nutrition, body wei ght growth rate, physiological condition, and physical actvity (Owen et al., 1978; Kirton, 1988). Microbiology of Goat Meat Meat is defined as the part of the muscle of any cattle, sheep, swine, or goats which is skeletal or which is found in the tongue, dia phragm, heart, or esophagus with or without the accompanying and overlying fat, and portions of bone (in bone-in product such as T-bone or porterhouse steak), skin, sinew, nerve, and blood vessels which normally accompany the muscle tissue and that are not separated from it in the process of dressi ng (Code of Federal Regulations 9CFR301.2, 2006). It is animal tissu es that are suitable for use as food and it includes processed foods prepared from those tissues (Aberle et al., 2001). Meat and meat products are very perishable. Deterioration begins soon after ex sanguination, resulting in microbial, chemical and physical changes. The initial microbial load pl ays a role in the determination of the food products shelf-life. Three majo r microorganisms found in meat are fungi, mold, and bacteria (being a major source of contamination). The mo lds and yeast growing on meat are aerobic. Bacteria thriving in meat could be aerobic, anaerobic or facultative. During refrigerated storage some genera of bacteria found on meat and poultry are mainly Pseudomonas, Moraxella, Psychrobacter and Acinetobacter on the surface, followed by Aeromonas, Shewanella, Micrococcus, Lactobacillus, Streptococcu s, Leuconostoc, Pedicoccus, Flavobacterium and Proteus (Aberle et al., 2001). The process of freezi ng decreases the number of microorganisms during storage. Species of the above genera can survive this process and resume growth

PAGE 17

17 following thawing (Forrest et. al, 1975). Some a dditional organisms of concern associated with meat in general are Salmonella, Escherichia coli Campylobacter jejuni Listeria monocytogenes Staphylococcus aureus (Romans et al., 1994). Srivastava et al. (1981) analyzed frozen goat meat for microbes and toxin production by Bacillus cereus No Salmonella Staphylococci yeast nor mold was found. There was an increase in psychr ophiles as a function of storage. A surprising increase of mesophiles ( Streptococci ) was detected. Enterobacter sp., Escherichia coli Klebsiella sp. and Bacillus cereus were isolated from the frozen goat meat (Srivastava et al., 1981; Sinha and Mandal, 1977). Cooked goat meat wa s then served to si x human volunteers to study toxin production. Fourteen hours after the ingestion of the meat, only one person developed stomach ache, nausea and mild dia rrhea. Those results s upport in vivo study performed on mice (Srivastava et al., 1981). Production of Meat Goats Meat goat production is increas ing because of the goats economic value as efficient converter of low quality forages into quality meat, milk, and hide products for specialty markets (The Pennsylvania State University, 2000). Goats ar e also very efficient regarding the conversion of browse pasture to lean tissu e because of their inc lination to browse on bushes, brushes, and weeds (Small Farms Research Center Alabam a A & M University, 2005). Casey (1988) and Wheaton (1993) reported an average daily weight gain to be 300gm for lambs and 227 gm for goats during pre-weaning period on grass with some supplementation. There are around eleven breeds of goats raised within the U.S. for meat (USDA APHIS, 2005). Except for the South African Boer goat imported from New Zealand, there are no true meat goat breeds in the U.S. (Luginbuhl, 1998; Pi nkerton et al. 1991). Span ish goats are one of the breeds that stand out as more specialized for meat production. The Span ish goat is originally from Spain via Mexico to the U.S. It is now the predominant meat type goat found in Central

PAGE 18

18 Texas around the Edwards Plateau. It has the ability to breed out of season and is an excellent range animal. It has recently been bred intens ively to improve meat characteristics (Luginbuhl, 2000). The Boer goat of South Africa owes its name to the Dutch word boer meaning farm and was introduced to the United States in 1993 (Coffey, 2002; USDA APHIS, 2005). The present Boer goat emerged in the 20th century, when South African farmers began breeding for a meat goat with good conformation, high growth ra te and fertility, short white hair and red markings on the head and neck. Other types of goats bred for meat are Myotonic or Fainting goat, Nubian (dairy and meat ), and Kiko (Luginbuhl, 1998). Meat goat production requires following good husbandry practices in the areas of sanitation, health, feed, water, and shelter. Female goats are referred to as does, doelings, or nannies. Males are bucks, billies or buck lings. Castrated males are identified as wethers. Young goats are called kids. Goats adapt well to hot environments becaus e of their small size and higher ratio of body surface ar ea to body weight. In addition, their ability to conserve body water, their limited subcutaneous fat cover, a nd their hairy coats are good survival traits under desert like conditions. Goats are inclined to forage or browse from the top of a plant downward. Their plant diet is extremely varied and includes some species which are toxic or detrimental to cattle and sheep. This makes them valuable for controlling noxious weeds and clearing brush and undergrowth. They will seldom eat soiled food or water unless facing starvation (Wikipedia Foundation, 2006). Breeding occurs from September to Novemb er for spring kidding (Stanton, 2005). Goats are seasonally polyestrous with estrous cycles every 20 to 21 days from July through January. Tropical breeds of goats may cycle year-round. Go ats reach sexual maturity at five to nine months, but it is not recommended to breed them until they have reached 60 percent of their

PAGE 19

19 adult weight, or one year of age. With prope r nutrition and management, three kid crops every two years are possible. An ideal management sche me would be to breed in February, then again in September. A buck may breed 50 to 200 doe s in a single breed ing season, but it is recommended that three or four bucks be put with 100 does. Bucks should be changed often to prevent inbreeding in the flock (at least every two years) (Alford et al., 1998). The gestation period varies from 147 to 155 days, the average being 149 days, but five months on average. Does generally deliver two kids averaging four to six pounds each with one or three kids not uncommon. The best mating system consists of exposing the does during February and March, removing them, and placing them with the males (bucks) in September, October. Marketing of Goat Meat A marketing channel describes the movement of a product or commodity from the site of production to the place of consumption. It may include transportation, handling and storage, ownership transfers, processing, and distribution (Pinke rton et al., 1991). Consumer demands are met through different marketing chan nels that include: dir ect sales, wholesale and retail markets, or restaurants, specialty markets (freezer ma rket, ethnic/religious market, gourmet market). Some ethnic or religiou s groups such as Africans and Mus lims prefer to slaughter goats themselves. Most consumers obtain their goat meat from wholesalers and retailers, who in turn purchase their meat from USDA inspected processing facilities or importers. Goat meat is served in ethnic restaurants but is a rare delicacy in mainstr eam restaurants (Fraser, 2004). One of the greatest challenge s to the meat goat industry is reaching mainstream consumers rather than only ethnic groups. Ther e are few places where goat meat is sold wholesale or retail. Because of a lack of familia rity, goat is difficult to sell in supermarkets because consumers lack cooking preparation kno wledge (Alford et al., 1998). A promising strategy to implement is to target the foodservice sector (r estaurants). If this is to be done, it is

PAGE 20

20 imperative to ensure a constant, high quality su pply of goat meat at a stable price. Marketing goat meat in restaurants, could also encourage consumers to purchase goat for home preparation (Alford et al., 1998). The percentage of fat in meat depends on ma ny factors such as the animal specie, the diet, the meat cut, the degree of trimming of fat, the cooking or processing technique (JimenezColmenero et al., 2001). The amount of choleste rol in lean red meat, where fat had been trimmed, is low when compared to the amount produced by the human body each day (Swize et al., 1992; Chizzolini et al., 1999; Jimenez-Colmenero et al., 2001). Acceptability of Goat Meat Individuals consume meat in order to obtain some satisfact ion that is influenced by psychological and sensory respons es (product appearance, price, aroma, flavor, tenderness, juiciness, nutritive value) (Abe rle, 2001). Flavor has a great in fluence on the sensory quality of muscle foods, consequently on its ov erall acceptability (Shahidi, 1994). Smith et al. (1974) compared sensory characte ristics of goat meat with meat from pork, beef and lamb. Goat meat had the same juic iness, but less tenderness and less overall satisfaction, when compared to por k, beef, and lamb at comparable maturity and fatness. Goat meat has a distinct flavour and aroma when comp ared to lamb and muttons studies on chemical composition and meat quality revealed that goat meat was not inferi or to lamb (Schnfeldt et al., 1993a, 1993b; Casey et al., 2003; Sh eradin et al., 2003a, b; We bb et al., 2005). Smith et al. (1974) reported that goat meat was not significantly different fr om beef or lamb in flavor desirability when oven-baked rib or loin samples were evaluate d by untrained panelists. Meat that is cooked and then stored refrigerated is susceptible to oxidation of lipids and phospholipids, known as warmed-over flavor (Cross et al., 1987). A major quality spoile r of stored foods is attributed to off-odors and flavor s of oxidative rancidity (chemical change in an unsaturated

PAGE 21

21 bond of a fat or oil). The cooking yield and shear of goat leg chops were similar for broiling and microwaving, but broiled chevon chops were dark er and lower in fat (James and Berry, 1997). By observation, higher surface temperature in broiling may have been responsible for the significantly darker surface color (the electric oven was pre-heated to 191oC, with the meat products being cooked to an internal temperature of 75oC). No significant difference was observed in the shearing of the samples, s uggesting no differences between broiled and microwaved samples (James and Berry, 1997). Cooking losses were highest in leg cuts, intermediate in shoulder/arm cuts, and lowest in loin/rib cuts (Kannan et al., 2001). Goats and sheep belong to the family of Bovidae and the subfamily of Caprinae. Extensive work has been done on sheep meat and its chemistry and flavor. Shahidi (1998) determined that sheep meat has a inherent char acteristic odor and flavor associated with it. Hornstein and Crowe (1963) suggested that fat wa s responsible for the species flavor. (Brennand and Lindsay, 1982) determined fatty tissues were the most significant source of mutton flavors. Panelists were able to differentiate lamb from beef and from pork. In addition, Melton (1990) determined that meat flavor is influenced by fatty acid composition. Jacobson and Koehler (1963) named carbonyls as important contributors to mutton odor. Fa ctors such as age, diet, breed, and sex may also influence the odor and flavor of sheep or goat meat (Shahidi, 1994). Flavor and odor can be masked by technologies such as marination, cooking, and curing. These technologies can be combined and their use can add value to meat products. Value-added Product Technology Value-added is defined as adding economic value to a product by changing its current place, time and from one set of characteristics to other characteristics that are more preferred in the marketplace (Boland and Bosse, 2006). Addi ng value is the process of changing or transforming a product from its original state to a more valuable state. Value-added refers to

PAGE 22

22 products that have been changed in form, func tion, or grouping to increase their economic value and/or consumption appeal (USDA, 2004). C onsumer food trends include convenience requirements, more meat, innovative dairy product s, growth in ethnic foods and one-dish meals which include sandwiches, bowls, or cups as the entrees (Sloan, 2003). Convenience means less time for shopping, speed or ease of preparation, speed or ease of consumption, ready-to-eat or no preparation, or portability (M cMillin and Brock, 2005). Consumer s often are willing to pay higher prices for convenient versions of their favorite products (Information Resources Inc, 2002). Value-added products are a means to provide convenience and economic profitability. Primary processing operations include tenderi zation, grinding, flaki ng, freezing, case ready fabrication and packaging, whereas examples of further processing are curing, smoking, marinating, injection, emulsifying, forming, a nd cooking (Pearson and Gillette, 1996). Some other additional processes include grinding, chop ping, seasoning, heat treatment, water reduction and modified atmosphere packaging. Value-adde d product areas also would include irradiated products for microbial safety, pr ecooked products for convenience, portioned and institutional items for uniformity, and nutritionally enhanced meat for healthfulness (McMillin and Brock, 2005). Goat meat is usually sold as a whole carcass or in primal cuts (Kannan et al., 2001) to ethnic consumers (Degner and Locascio, 1988; Pi nkerton, 2002). Adding value to goat meat through production and processing practices will in crease the price of the meat (McMillin and Brock, 2005). The USDA Agricultural Marketing Servi ce (AMS) Institutional Meat Purchase Specifications (IMPS) for Fresh Goat Series 11 Meat illustrates five cutting styles targeting institutional and retail buyers. The different cuts from the cutting styles consist of foreshank,

PAGE 23

23 hindshank, neck, foresaddle, shoulder, outside shoulde r, inside shoulder, r ack, ribs, breast, back, loin, sirloin, and legs. (USDA AMS, 2006). According to McMillin and Brock (2005), the potential for value-added goat meat items can be identified, but increasing the value to specific producers, pro cessors, or consumers requires identification and communi cation with the target consum ers. There are opportunities for direct marketing of live animals or meat to customers or increasing the availability of traditional fresh raw chilled meat for the growing ethnic population. Rhee et al (2003) developed plain meat loaves a nd chili prepared with ground goat or beef at 15% fat. Goat meat was differentiated from beef in samples containing the same amount of fat by consumer panelists because of the dist inct taste of goat meat. James and Berry (1997) designed patties containing differe nt percentages of chevon and beef. The most tender samples evaluated by the consumer pane lists contained a combination of both meat types. Panelists (untrained and trained) found 20/80 chevon/ beef patties most flavorful, and the 100% chevon patties less flavorful. These fi ndings suggest that in making a ground product containing chevon, a combination with beef will produce a desira ble product for the consumers. Cosenza et al. (2003) developed a cabrito smoked sausage using goat meat alone, and combinations with soy protein concentrate. Fermented goat snack stic ks were made using goat meat alone and in combinations with soy protein concentrate to reduce cost (Cosenza, 2003). Trained panelists and consumer panelists detected no differences betw een the products. All pr oducts were acceptable. Gadiyaram and Kannan (2004) manufactured batches of chevon, beef, pork, and mixedmeat sausages with no added fat under iden tical conditions using a commercial sausage seasoning. Spanish goat carcasses, beef chuck, and pork leg cuts from different animals were used. All sausages were prepared in a conve ntional oven to internal temperature of 75oC. It was

PAGE 24

24 suggested that chevon could be us ed to manufacture low fat sausag es without influencing texture (Gadiyaram and Kannan, 2004). Kahan et al. (2006) evaluated five marinated goat meat products using apple cider vinegar, lime juice and water. The four different treatments were similar in goat flavor intensity and tendern ess. Panelists rated the goat formulated with the lime juice marinade significantly lower in off-flavor when compared to the control meat without apple cider vinegar or lime juice. The main goals of ma rination have been consid ered to be tenderizing, flavoring, and enhancing the sh elf life and safety of meat products (Bjrkroth, 2005). Meat flavor is improved when vinegar, oils, or both, in combination with spices are used. Water is chemically bound within the muscle tissue. High er water holding capacity is equivalent to juicier, and more palatable sens ory perceptions. Additional benef its include flavor enhancement through the addition of spices and flavorings (Sams, 2001). Treatment of meat with spices and curing agent (nitrate, nitrite, sugar, sodium erythorbate, and salt) has been known since the mid-1920s (Tompkins, 1986). Marination, a method to increase shelf-life and improve fl avor, texture and juiciness, is a process for infusing meat with savory ingredients (Toledo, 2001). It is the proce ss of soaking foods in a seasoned, often acidic solution before cooking. Marinate may have originated from the Latin word marine and means soaking or pickling in salt brine (Bjrkroth, 2005). According to Toledo (2001), marination is a process for infusing meat with sa vory ingredients to impr ove flavor, texture and juiciness. The whole objective of the marination process is to uni formly disperse the functional ingredients throughout the muscle in the marinade Marinades must be effectively incorporated and retained in the muscle in order to impart the desired effects of te nderness, juiciness and flavor impact in the cooked product. With time, this definition has been modified. In industrial systems, marination is accomplis hed by injection, tumbling or massaging. It can also contain

PAGE 25

25 herbs and spices (Toledo, 2001). Sodium Chlori de (NaCl) and Calcium Chloride (CaCl2) are substances commonly used in meat technology and meat marination to help bind water. According to Hamm (1960), Sodium Chloride m oves the isoelectric point of meat proteins towards lower pH values, enhancing its water binding properties. A similar effect can be achieved by the addition of substances, which are capable of increasing pH value (phosphates, carbonates) and by the application of food acids (lactic, citric, ascorb ic, tartaric a nd acetic acids) (Calhoun et al., 1996). The primary reason for us ing phosphates is to improve water-holding capacity which is the amount of moisture a piece of meat can maintain. The water-holding capacity varies with the muscle pH. Post-slaught er muscle pH drops from around 7.2 to between 5.3 to 5.7, right around the isoelectri c point of the meat (about 5.4) In this state of neutral charge, muscle fibers are very close together, squeezing out moisture and leaving no room for added moisture. Adding positive or negative charges creates repulsion of the muscle fibers, sometimes referred to as protein swelling, th at creates space in which water can be held (Foster, 2004). McKenna et al. (2003) investigated sheep a nd goat meat production and utilization. Lamb loin chops were marinated by injection with water, cranberry juice, salt, black pepperoleoresin, onionoleoresin, marjoramoleoresin, and rose maryoleoresin, and applying a topical butter garlic spice rub (#144; A.C. Legg, Inc.). The chops were then packaged, retail displayed, consumer evaluated, microbiologically teste d, and evaluated for lipid oxidation. Marination improved palatability characteristics of lamb chops and extended shelf life during retail display; but consumers preferred the appearance of non-ma rinated chops to those that were marinated. Packaging Systems for Valu e-added Goat Products Packaging is a coordinated system to prepar e food products for tran sport, distribution, storage, retailing and consumpti on (Soroka, 2002). Its purpose is to protect, extend shelf-life,

PAGE 26

26 provide convenience and communicate informati on. According to Rourke (2005), manufacturers of cooked meat products select packaging for tw o major reasons: preservation of product quality (appearance, flavor, odor and text ure) and inhibition of microbial growth. In addition, customers are demanding consumer-friendly packaging such as easy open, recloseable, dual-ovenable and microwaveable. Mize and Kelly (200 4) audited and reported the tre nds in fresh meat packaging at the retail level. In 2002, 69% of the linear f ootage of the self-service meat case was occupied by fresh meat and poultry. This figure declined to 63% in 2004, reflecti ng a growing conversion of meat items to products with greater consumer convenience such as fully cooked entrees, marinated meats, as well as hams and sausages. In 2004, 60% of the packages audited were case ready, which increased from 49% in 2002. A lthough literature was av ailable on specific packaging systems for goat meat products, it will be expected that the majo rity of packages in the category of value-added meat packaging were st ill in a flexible film, and vacuum sealed state (Eilert, 2005). Fully cooked entrees are a category of products that have grown over the last five years. The majority of these produc ts are packaged and cooked in a flexible heat stable film, with a variety of secondary packages around the product. Consumers are demanding foods with greater convenience Meal kits category sales are expected to increase from $11 million in sales (1998) to $50 million by 2008 (Eilert, 2005). Factors th at contribute to this increase include the number of young people with mini mal cooking skills, employment a nd lifestyle that do not allow time for meal preparation, the baby boom gene ration is reaching retirement age, and the willingness to prepare complete meals is diminishing. However, Food Saver bags are an example of a commercially available cook-in bag. Food Saver bags are patented therefore limited in formation is available on the properties of the systems. These bags are made of polyethylene (a combination of high density, and low density),

PAGE 27

27 one of the most versatile and ec onomical polymers with low pro cessing energy costs, and coated with nylon for strength. High-density polyethylene (HDPE) is inexpensive, easily processed, and a good moisture barrier. The film also has low oxygen-, hydrocarbon-, an d flavor barrier properties, a low softening point, and opacity (Soroka, 2002). Low-density polyethylene (LDPE) and linear low-density polyethylene (LLDPE) are low cost, easy processibility, and good moisture barriers similar to HDPE. LDPE and LL DPE have good heat sealab ility at temperatures from 106oC to 112oC. Instructions for microwaving, boiling are recommended for frozen foods. Food Saver bags have a melting point of 127oC. The packaging material consists of two sides: one smooth, and one rough side. The smooth side allows a better seal, while the rough side permits air to be channeled out during the vacu uming process. Packaging systems such as Food Saver exist for consumer convenience. Consumers demand for convenien t foods steered the industry toward ready-to-eat, fully cooked, or heat and serve products, and packaging plays an important role in maintaining shelflife.

PAGE 28

28 CHAPTER 3 MATERIALS AND METHODS This study was conducted in three phases. Phas e 1 consisted of research and development to determine the appropriate amount for the mari nade and the spice ble nd ingredients. Phase 2 involved the production and evalua tion of a value-added uncooked vacuum packaged marinated goat meat product. Phase 3 invol ved the production and evaluati on of a value-added heat and serve vacuum packaged goat meat product. Phase 1: Formulation of Ma rinade and Topical Spice Rub Sample Preparation Meat goats were purchased from a local pr oducer in Jasper, Flor ida (Eunice Cornelius farm) (Table 3-1). Among the eleven animals, we re ten males (castrated by 3 weeks of age), and one female. The animals weighed on average 28.78 kg. The animals were slaughtered, and processed at the University of Florida Animal Sciences USDA in spected processing facility. The carcasses were washed, rinsed with a lactic acid antimicrobial solution and chilled for 24 hours. After the chilling process, the carcasses were fabri cated into primal cuts: leg, loin, rack (ribs) and shoulder. The ribs were cut according to the USDA Institutional Meat Purchase Specifications (USDA AMS, 2006) for Fresh Goat barbeque style (approved in October 2001). The ribs were separated from the carcass by a strai ght cut posterior to the last rib on the pos terior end. The neck and the breast were removed. The ribs were split. All the meat was vacuum packaged and frozen at -20C until used. Only the rib racks with loin muscle attached were used in this study. The racks were cut into three equal longitudinal po rtions, vacuum packaged and frozen at -20oC until used (approximately 2 weeks).

PAGE 29

29 Sample Treatment Various ingredients were evaluated in an effort to develop a marinade (Table 3-2). In all formulation, the goat meat samples were marina ted for 1 hour in individual containers (30 minutes for each side of the loin chops) at 4 1C. Following marination of the loin chops, the products were baked in a conventional oven (G eneral Electric Model: JGRS14 Built-In Gas Oven) at 163C to an internal temperature of 74C using copper--constantan thermocouples attached to a potentiometer. Goat meat formula tion with or without 2.0% apple cider vinegar or lime juice were prepared by sensory panel. Base d on the results of this evaluation, the decision was made to marinate with appl e cider vinegar to limit the cost. (Recipe 1) (Table 3-3). Four formulations were developed and consisted of Control or 1 (goat meat), 2 (goat meat + marinade), 3 (goat meat + spice rub), and 4 ( goat meat + marinade + spice rub). For each formulation, the goat loin chops were placed in a vacuum tumbler, and tumbled for 25 minutes. After tumbling, the product was ei ther packaged immediately, or subjected to a topical spice blend (Table 3-4) before packaging. The evalua tion of the goat loin c hops involved baking in a conventional oven (General Electric Model: JGRS14 Built-In Gas Oven) at 163C to an internal temperature of 74C, and tasted by pa nelists in a formal sensory panel. Preparation of the Marinate and Spice Rub for application to the Goat Loin Chops Step 1 : Spice rub preparation 1Combine all ingredients in the spice rub formulation. Mix well. Step 2 : Preparation of marinade 1Dissolve sodium tripolyphosphate in water. 2Add salt and dissolve. 3Add apple cider vinegar and blend well. 4Place meat in tumbler.

PAGE 30

30 5Add marinade solution. 6Vacuum tumble for 25 minutes. Step 3 : Application of spice rub 1Manually apply spice rub on the outsi de of the loin chops uniformly. Step 4 : Cooking process 1Preheat conventional electric oven to 163C. 2Insert thermocouples in the thic kest portion of the loin chops. 3Cook the meat to an internal temperature of 74C. 4Remove the baked ribs from the oven and allo wed to stand at room temperature for 30 minutes. 5Vacuum package the meat in commercially av ailable cooking bags, and store in walk-in cooler. Phase 2: Production and Evaluation of Vacuum packaged Raw Goat Ribs Sample Preparation Boer Crossbred Spanish meat goats (about 7 months old) were purchased from a local producer from White Springs, Florida (Norma Tillman) (Table 3-5). Ten animals including eight castrated males, and two females weighing on av erage 20.63 kg were utilized. The animals were slaughtered, and processed at the University of Florida Animal Scie nces USDA inspected processing facility in the same ma nner as discussed in Phase One. Sample Treatment The frozen goat ribs were thawed for 18 2 hours in a 4 1C walk-in cooler. The racks from the goats were cut in th ree longitudinally proportional cuts using an electric band saw (Biro 44 Band Saw, The Biro Manufacturing Company, Marblehead, OH, 43440-2099). The rib units were divided into four groups and combined w ith either 1) No treatment, control, 2) apple cider vinegar only, 3) Spice rub only, and 4) Spice rub plus apple cider vinegar (Table 2). Except

PAGE 31

31 for the control treatment and treatment 3 (spice rub only), the ribs were placed into a vacuum tumbler (Lyco vacuum tumbler, model 40, Colum bus, WI) along with water, salt, apple cider vinegar, sodium tripolyphosphate, and tumbled for 25 minutes. After marination, the meat in treatment 4 was coated with th e spice rub. All meat was vacuum packaged in Cryovac B4770 9 x 18 (Simpsonville, SC) vacuum bags, and stored at 4 1C for 21 days. The specifications for the Cryovac B4770 9 x 18 are 0.50.6 g/100 in2/24 hrs@100oF, 100% Relative Humidity for water vapor transmission rate, and 1cm3 /m2/24hr atm @ 40oF at 0% Relative Humidity. A total of four packages were produced for each treatment, and for each day. Two of the packages, (each containing approximately 300g of goat ribs) were used for se nsory panel. The other two packages containing approximately 25g of goat meat, each were utilized for microbiological analysis. The ribs were evaluated after 0, 7, 14, a nd 21 days storage for sensory characteristics, microbiology, proximate composition, and pH. Microbiological Analysis and pH The goat meat samples were analyzed for Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella, fecal coliforms, E. Coli 0157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, total anaerobes, total psychrotrophs, and total aerobes. All media (Difco Laboratories, Detroit, MI 48232-7058) and materials used for the cultivation and maintenan ce of the bacteria were purchased fro m Fisher Scientific (Pittsburgh, PA 15238).Twenty-five grams of goat meat from each formulation were placed in sterile 18 x30 cm Fisherbrand stomacher bags (400 ml, Fisher Sc ientific, Pittsburgh, PA 15238) along with 225 ml of sterile 0.1% peptone water (Cat. No. DF01897-17-4). The stom acher bags were massaged by hand for two minutes to loosen any surface bacteria The use of the stomacher spilled the mixture. 1 ml of the sample rinse was tr ansferred to a test tube contai ning 9 mL of sterile 0.1% peptone water from which 10-1 to 10-6 serial dilutions we re prepared for each treatment. 1l from the dilutions was pipetted and spread (using a glass hockey stick which was flame sterilized before

PAGE 32

32 spreading) onto the plates. 0.1 ml aliquot of each dilution was spread onto Xylose Lysine Desoxycholate Agar (XLD, Cat. No. DF0788-17-9) for Salmonella colonies, Plate Count Agar (PCA, Cat. No. DF0479-17-3) for total psychrot rophs counts, Anaerobic Ag ar ( Cat. No. DF053617-4) for total anaerobes, Tryptic Soy Agar (TSA Cat. No. DF0369-17-6) for total aerobes, m FC Agar (Cat. No. DF0677-17-3) fo r fecal coliforms, Oxford Agar (Cat. No. DF0225-17-0) for Listeria monocytogenes, Oxford media Suppl ement (Cat. No. DF0214-60-9), Remel Mannitol Salt Agar (Cat. No. 453902) for Staphylococcus aureus, MacConkey Sorbitol Agar (Cat. No. DF0075-17-1) for Escherichia coli 0157:H7, Anaer oGenTM 3.5L packets from Remel (Cat. No. 6535) were used in plastic anaerobic jars for th e generation of anaerobic conditions. All plates were done in duplicate. The mFC plates were incubated for 1824 hrs at 44 1oC. The PCA plates were stored at 25 1oC for 5 days. The TSA plates, Ma nnitol Salt Agar, and Modified Oxford Agar plates, MacConkey Sorbitol Agar pl ates were incubated for 48 hrs at 35 1oC. The XLD, and Anaerobic Agar plates were stored for 24 2 hrs at 37 1oC. After incubation, suspected colony forming units (CFU) from each plate were counted, recorded and averaged. Immediately after the plates were spread, pH valu es were measured using Fisher Scientific pH meter, (Accumet, AB15, Vernonhills, IL), and reco rded for all treatments immediately after the microbiological analyses were completed. The pr obe was placed inside the sample homogenate and allowed to equilibrate for one minute before the reading was taken. All pH readings were performed in duplicates followed by an average of the results. Sensory Evaluation Training for the goat meat sensory panels was accomplished in a one-hour session. Most panelists were already familiar with goat meat and had previously participated in trained panels involving goat meat. Goat meat was purchased fr om a local supermarket, and utilized in the training session. Panelists were trained to iden tify goat meat flavor and overall tenderness.

PAGE 33

33 The panelists were presented w ith roasted goat meat without any additives, roasted goat meat that was treated with apple cider vinegar, an d roasted beef. The panelists were asked to rate the characteristic goat flavor in goat meat with and without apple cider vinegar added. Beef was presented as a typical meat control, and as a comparison to goat meat flavor. Goat flavor intensity was evaluated using an 8 point scale, where 8 = extremel y intense, 7 = very intense, 6 = moderately intense, 5 = slightly intense, 4 = slightly bland, 3 = moderately intense, 2 = very bland, 1 = extremely bland. Overall tenderness was evaluated using an 8 point scale, where 8 = extremely tender, 7 = very tender, 6 = moderately tender, 5 = slightly te nder, 4 = slightly tough, 3 = moderately tough, 2 = very tough, 1 = extremely tough. On the day of evaluation, the samples intende d for sensory analysis (2 packages per treatment) were weighed and then roasted at 163C, until the meat reached an internal temperature of 74C in a conventional gas fi red oven. Following the cooking process, the samples were weighed to determine the cooking yield and cut into 1.25 cm2 pieces for sensory evaluation. All samples were coded, and served on paper plates with unsalted crackers and ambient temperature water. Panelists were instru cted to pause for 20 seconds between samples, drink water and eat crackers to cleanse their palates The panels were conducted in sensory booths illuminated with red filtere d lights to create objectivity. Proximate Analysis Proximate analysis was performed on each of the goat rib formulations for the two trials. All analyses were conducted in duplicate samples per treatment on the day of analysis (0, 7, 14, 21). Duplicate samples of each rib formulation were analyzed for moisture using the oven drying technique (method 985.14 AOAC, 2000), and ash using the mu ffle oven technique (method 920.153 AOAC, 2000), fat (method 960.39 AOAC, 2000), and protein following the Kjeldahl procedure (method 928.08 AOAC, 2000).

PAGE 34

34 Cost Analysis A cost analysis of the goat ribs was perfor med in order to determine the production cost and the approximate end price of the goat meat products. The information will be useful in determining the economical feasib ility of the production of the di fferent formulations of goat ribs. Cost analysis consisted of expenses for goa t meat, the processing of the goat carcasses, the added of the ingredients, and labor. Statistical Analysis The statistical analysis for this project was performed using SAS Windows (SAS Institute, 2002). A block design with four formulations a nd two replications was used for evaluating proximate, pH, microbiological analysis. A to tal of 64 samples were analyzed for the microbiology and sensory panel. The analysis of variance of the General Linear Model Procedures (PROC GLM) of SAS software, and the LSMEANS procedure for generating standard errors of the mean (SEM) were used to analyze trial, day, tr eatment, and treatment by day interaction. Variations in data were accounted for by four treatment effects: trial, treatment, day, and treatment*day. Any significant differences were analyzed by the multiple comparison procedure of Duncans Multiple range test, us ing a level of significance of alpha = 0.05. Phase 3: Production and Evaluation of Cook -in-Bag Heat and Serve Barbecue Goat Ribs Sample Preparation Goat racks were purchased from a Florida goa t meat processor in Orlando, Florida. The ribs were cut according to the USDA Institut ional Meat Purchase Specifications (IMPS, 2006) for Fresh Goat, barbeque style (approved in Oc tober, 2001). The ribs were separated from the carcass by a straight cut posterior to the last rib on the posterior end. The outside shoulder was separated by cutting through the natural seam. The neck and the breast were removed. The ribs were split. The meat was stored at 4 1C fo r 2 days, prior to being used in this study.

PAGE 35

35 Sample Treatment Goat meat racks were cut into approximat ely 12 cm by 10 cm pieces with a Biro 44 Band Saw (The Biro Manufacturing Company, Ma rblehead, OH 434402099). The racks from the goats were cut in three long itudinally proportional cuts in the Meats Laboratory of the Department of Animal Sciences at the University of Florida. The slabs were divided into four groups and treated with either 1). No treatment, control, 2) apple cider vinegar only, 3) Spice rub application, and 4) Spice rub application in add ition to Apple Cider Vine gar (Table 3-2). Except for the control treatment and treatment 3 (with sp ice rub only), the ribs were placed into a vacuum tumbler (Lyco vacuum tumbler, model 40, Columbus, WI) along with water, salt, apple cider vinegar, sodium tripolyphosphate, and tumb led for 25 minutes. After marination, the meat in treatment 3 was coated with the spice rub. The goat meat from each treatment was baked in a conventional gas fired oven at 163C until the m eat reached an internal temperature of 74C. Following the cooking process, the meat was allowe d to cool and then vacuum packaged with a commercially available FoodSaver Pro Sport Model Vacuum Packager (Jarden Corporation. Rye, N.Y.) FoodSaver rolls material. This pack aging material was composed of two different sides: one was rough and bumpy, while the othe r side was smooth. The specifications for the FoodSaver bags are 164.232 cc/m2/24 hrs @ 23C on the rough side, and 0.334 cc/m2/24 hrs @ 23C. Custom-sized bags (12 in x 11 in) were cut with the FoodSaver Store n Cut device and filled with approximately 300g of goat ribs per bag, and sealed. FoodSaver packaging roll stock film was used to make 112 bags with the aid of FoodSaver Store n Cut device. The FoodSaver packaging according to the manufact urer was designed for use in refrigerator, freezer, microwave, for boiling water; and for re use after proper cleaning. The products were stored in a 4 1oC walk-in cooler for 42 days total. Th e experiment was repeated two times, using goat meat from the same source for each repetition to ensure product consistency.

PAGE 36

36 Microbiological Analysis and pH The goat meat samples were analyzed for Staphylococcus aureus, Salmonella, fecal coliforms, E. Coli 0157:H7, Listeria monocytogenes, total anaerobes, total psychrotrophs, lactic acid bacteria and total aerobe s. All media (Difco Laborator ies, Detroit, MI 48232-7058) and materials used for the cultivation and maintenance of the bacteria were purchased from Fisher Scientific (Pittsburgh, PA 15238).Twenty-five gram s of goat meat from each formulation were placed in sterile 18 x30 cm Fisherbrand stomacher bags (400 ml, Fisher Scientific, Pittsburgh, PA 15238) along with 225 ml of sterile 0.1% peptone water (Cat. No. DF01897-17-4). The stomacher bags were massaged by hand for two minutes to loosen any surface bacteria. The use of the stomacher spilled the mixture. 1 ml of th e sample rinse was transferred to a test tube containing 9 mL of sterile 0.1% peptone water from which 10-1 to 10-6 serial dilutions were prepared for each treatment. 1l from the dilution s was pipetted and spread (using a glass hockey stick which was flame sterilized before spreadin g) onto the plates. 0.1 ml aliquot of each dilution was spread onto Xylose Lysine Desoxychol ate Agar (XLD, Cat. No. DF0788-17-9) for Salmonella colonies, Plate Count Agar (PCA, Cat. No. DF0479-17-3) for total psychrotrophs counts, Anaerobic Agar ( Cat. No. DF0536-17-4) for total anaerobes, Tryptic Soy Agar (TSA, Cat. No. DF0369-17-6) for total aerobes, m FC Agar (Cat. No. DF0677-17-3) for fecal coliforms, Oxford Agar (Cat. No. DF0225-17-0) for Listeria monocytogenes Oxford media Supplement (Cat. No. DF0214-60-9), Remel Mannitol Salt Agar (Cat. No. 453902) for Staphylococcus aureus MacConkey Sorbitol Agar (Cat. No. DF0075-17-1) for Escherichia coli 0157:H7, APT Agar (Cat. No. DF0654-17-0) fo r lactic acid bacteria, and AnaeroGenTM 3.5L packets from Remel (Cat. No. 6535) were used in plastic anaerobic jars for the generation of anaerobic conditions. All plates were done in dupl icate. The mFC plates were incubated for 1824 hrs at 44 1oC. The PCA plates were stored at 25 1oC for 5 days. The TSA plates, Mannitol

PAGE 37

37 Salt Agar, and Modified Oxford Agar plates MacConkey Sorbitol Agar pl ates, and APT plates were incubated for 48 hrs at 35 1oC. The XLD, and Anaerobic Agar plates were stored for 24 2 hrs at 37 1oC. After incubation, suspected colony form ing units (CFU) from each plate were counted, recorded and averaged. Immediately afte r the plates were spread, pH values were measured using Fisher Scientific pH meter, (A ccumet, AB15, Vernonhills, IL), and recorded for all treatments immediately after the microbiol ogical analyses were completed. The probe was placed inside the sample homogenate and allo wed to equilibrate for one minute before the reading was taken. All pH readings were performed in duplicates followed by an average of the results. Sensory Panel Analysis Training for the goat meat sensory panels was accomplished in a one-hour session. Most panelists were already familiar with goat meat and had previously participated in trained panels involving goat meat. Goat meat was purchased fr om a local supermarket, and utilized in the training session. Panelists were tr ained to identify goat meat fla vor and overall tenderness. The panelists were presented with ro asted goat meat without any addi tives, roasted goat meat that was treated with apple cider vine gar, and roasted beef. The panelis ts were trained to detect the characteristic goat flavor in goat meat with and without apple cider vinegar added. Beef was presented as a typical meat control, and as a comparison to goat meat flavor. Goat flavor intensity was evaluated using an 8 point scale, where 8 = extremel y intense, 7 = very intense, 6 = moderately intense, 5 = slightly intense, 4 = slightly bland, 3 = moderately intense, 2 = very bland, 1 = extremely bland. Overall tenderness was evaluated using an 8 point scale, where 8 = extremely tender, 7 = very tender, 6 = moderately tender, 5 = slightly te nder, 4 = slightly tough, 3 = moderately tough, 2 = very tough, 1 = extrem ely tough. Off-flavor was evaluated using a 6 point scale, where 6 = none detected, 5 = threshol d; barely detected, 4 = slight off-flavor, 3 =

PAGE 38

38 moderate off-flavor, 2 = strong o ff-flavor, 1 = extreme off-flavor. If an off-flavor was detected by the panelist, they were aske d to identify the off-flavor. The panels were conducted in sensory booths illu minated with red filtered lights to create objectivity. Before each taste panel, one packag e (300g) from each treatment was placed in a 1.5L stainless steel utensil filled to approximately of its capacity with cold tap water. The conventional gas fired stove (General Electric Model: JGRS14 Built-in Gas Oven) was then turned on and set at 7 on a 9 point dial, until the water boiled (for thirty minutes). The ribs were immersed in the boiling water for approximately 20 minutes, and reached an internal temperature of 81oC. There exist alternative cooking processe s. The vacuum packaged ribs could be reconstituted either by using a microwave, or an oven. When reconstitutin g the goat ribs using a microwave (Panasonic the Genius 1300W), the bag was punctured first. Secondly, the vacuum packaged meat product was inserted in the microw ave for 3 minutes at high setting to an internal temperature of 72oC. Reconstitution in a conventional el ectric oven (Gener al Electric Model: JGRS14 Built-in Gas Oven) was done by moist cooki ng. An Ovenware Casserole (9 in diameter, 2QT) was used. At first, the oven wa s preheated to a temperature of 135oC. Secondly, a wire top was placed inside the dish. Thir dly, the product was placed on top of the wire, and a cup of water poured at the bottom of the casserole. The Ovenwa re Casserole containing the meat was finally inserted in the oven for 1.5 hours to an internal temperature of 71oC. Temperatures were monitored with using copper--constantan ther mocouples attached to a potentiometer. Following the cooking process, the meat was trimmed of all bones and epimysial connective tissue as suggested by Research Gu idelines for Cookery, Sensory Evaluation and Instrumental Tenderness Measurements of Fres h Meat published by the Am erican Meat Science Association (AMSA) in cooperati on with the National Live Stoc k and Meat Board (1995). The

PAGE 39

39 meat was placed in a plexiglass container of di mensions 14 cm long x 12 cm wide x 4 cm deep. Each sample was prepared for sensory using sepa rate cutting boards and knives. The purpose for this separation was to avoid any cr oss-contamination (flavo rs, juices). The ribs were cut into 1cm x 1cm pieces and served in a thermostat controlled yogurt warmer (Salton Inc., Bronx, N.Y., Automatic Yogurt Maker). Prior to serving the samples, the glass jars used in the yogurt warmer were pre-heated at 135oC for 1 hour in a conventional elec tric oven (General Electric Model: JGRS14 Built-in Gas Oven) Consumer Sensory Panel Analysis In order to evaluate the goat products and th e purchase intent by consumers, an untrained consumer panel consisting of 84 individuals wa s conducted using the sensory facilities at the Food Science and Human Nutrition Department at the University of Florida. The booths were equipped with a computerized system (Compusense five, Compusense, Ontario, Canada) in a room illuminated with white light. All the instructions were give n in detail on the computer for the panelists. There were pass-th rough hatches to provide sample s to panelists. Compusense five program, a sensory and consumer research data collection program from Compusense was used during the consumer panel. As a result of the trained panel, it was dete rmined that the goat meat samples formulated with spice rub only, and marinade plus spice r ub be evaluated in the consumer panel. The samples (Goat meat + Spice rub, and Goat meat + Marinade + Spice rub) were served randomly to the panelists. Each panelist was given crackers, water, a number (panelist number) to input in the computer, and instructed to lift the hatch do or completely once finished. The panelists were instructed to evaluate the two pr oducts for meat flavor intensity, overall flavor, and texture, and overall acceptability using a hedonic scale where 1= dislike extremely, 5= neither like or dislike and 9= like extremely. A hedonic s cale is a rating scale method that measures the level of liking

PAGE 40

40 or disliking of food products (OMahony, 1986). A score of 5 and over would indicate that the product was acceptable. The panelists were also asked to identify their sex, age group, and whether he/ she would buy the product s. The data were collected au tomatically at the end of the sensory session and printed for analysis. Proximate Analysis Proximate analysis was performed on each of the goat rib formulations for the two trials. All analyses were conducted in duplicate samples per treatment on the day of analysis (0, 7, 14, 21). Duplicate samples of each rib formulation were analyzed for moisture using the oven drying technique (method 985.14 AOAC, 2000), and ash using the mu ffle oven technique (method 920.153 AOAC, 2000), fat (method 960.39 AOAC, 2000), and protein following the Kjeldahl procedure (method 928.08 AOAC, 2000). Cost Analysis A cost analysis of the goat ribs was perfor med in order to determine the production cost and the approximate end price of the goat meat products. The information will be useful in determining the economical feasib ility of the production of the di fferent formulations of goat ribs. Cost analysis consisted of expenses for goa t meat, the processing of the goat carcasses, the added of the ingredients, and labor. Statistical Analysis The statistical analysis for this project was performed using SAS Windows (SAS Institute, 2002). A block design with four formulations a nd two replications was used for evaluating proximate, pH, TBARS, sensory and microbiologi cal analysis. A total of 112 samples were analyzed for the microbiology and sensory panel. Th e analysis of variance of the General Linear Model Procedures (PROC GLM) of SAS software, and the LS MEANS procedure for generating standard errors of the mean (SEM) we re used to analyze trial, day, treatment, and

PAGE 41

41 treatment by day interaction. Varia tions in data were accounted for by four treatment effects: trial, treatment, day, and treatment*day. Any significant differences were analyzed by the multiple comparison procedure of Duncans Multiple range test, using a level of significance of alpha = 0.05. Thiobarbituric Acid Reactive Substances Analysis Thiobarbituric Acid Reactive Substances (T BARS) distillation procedure for meat and poultry was adapted using procedures from Tarl adgis et al. (1960), Rhee (1978) and Ke et al. (1984). In the adapted procedure, the sample was read against the blank at the optical wavelength of 535nm. In addition, 66% recovery was obtained, compared to 69% in Tarladgis et al. (1960), resulting in a variation in the K (distillation) value.

PAGE 42

42 Table 3-1. Weight and sex data for Spanish, Boer Crossbred Meat Goats purchased from Eunice Cornelius farm Tag # Sex Live Weight (lbs) Live Weight (kg) Carcass Weight (lbs) Carcass Yield (%) 10 M 61 27.66 30 49.18 11 M 65 29.48 30 46.15 09 M 76 34.47 35 46.05 12 M 51 23.13 24 47.06 15 M 68 30.84 31 45.59 16 M 70 31.75 33 47.14 17 M 45 20.41 22 48.89 14 M 70 31.75 33 47.14 61 M 68 30.84 34 50.00 18 M 60 27.21 28 57.13 62 Mean F 64 64 29.02 28.77 30 30 46.88 48.29 Table 3-2. Goat Meat Marinade Formulation Ingredients 123 4 %%% % Fajitaa 2.00.00.0 0.0 Water 8.08.69.0 11.0 Salt 0.01.01.0 1.0 Apple Cider Vinegarb 2.02.01.0 0.0 Sodium Tripolyphosphatec 0.00.40.4 0.4 Goat Meat 88.088.086.6 86.6 Lime juiced --2.0 1.0 a: A.C. Legg Packing Co., Inc, Birmingham, AL b: Albertsons Inc., Boise ID c: Budenheim Gallard-Schlesinger, Plainview, NY

PAGE 43

43 Table 3-3. Marinade formulations for Goat meat ribs: Phase 1 Ingredients Recipe 1 (%) Recipe 2 (%) Recipe 3 (%) Recipe 4 (%) Water 10.0010.0010.00 12.00 Salt 1.001.001.00 1.00 Apple Cider Vinegar 2.000.001.00 0.00 Sodium Tripolyphosphate 0.400.400.40 0.40 Meat 86.6086.6086.60 86.60 Lime Juice 0.002.001.00 0.00 Table 3-4. Spice Blend R ub for Goat meat ribs Ingredients Grams/ 25 lbs of meat Source Salt 25.00 Black Pepper 18.75 Badia Spices, Miami FL Cayenne pepper 6.25 Zatarains, New Orleans FL Dried Thyme 18.75 Badia Spices, Miami FL Garlic Powder 25.00 Badia Spices, Miami FL Onion Powder 25.00 Badia Spices, Miami FL Paprika 25.00 Badia Spices, Miami FL Table 3-5. Weight and sex data for Spanish Boer Crossbred M eat Goats purchased from Norma Tillman farm Tag # Sex Live Weight (lbs) Live Weight (kg) Carcass Weight (lbs) Carcass Yield (%) 32 M 42 19.05 20 47.62 08 F 55 24.94 28 50.91 037 M 53 24.04 26 49.06 16 M 46 20.86 22 47.83 10 M 38 17.23 17 44.74 25 M 45 20.41 22 48.89 30 F 46 20.86 24 52.17 11 M 50 22.67 19 38.00 05 M 40 18.14 17 42.50 04 M 40 18.14 25 62.50

PAGE 44

44 CHAPTER 4 RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The objectives of this study were to (1) deve lop refrigerated value-added vacuum packaged raw goat ribs, (2) evaluate proximate co mposition, pH, sensory and microbiological characteristics of four formulations on the raw goat rib formulations, (3) develop a convenient and marketable refrigerated vacuum packaged heat and serve goat meat rib product, and (4) evaluate proximate composition, pH, Thiobarbituri c Acid Reactive Substances (TBARS), cost sensory and microbiological charac teristics of four heat and serve goat rib formulations. Marinated Vacuum Packaged Raw Goat Ri bs refrigerated for 21 days at 4 1oC Microbiological Analysis Fecal coliforms Fecal coliforms remained less than 2 log CFU/g through 21 days storage (Table 4-1). Although fecal coliforms were less than 2 log CF U/g for all treatments, the spice rub alone and in combination with marinade resulted in higher microbial counts (P > 0.05). In contrast, no fecal coliforms were detected after 7 and through 21 da ys storage for the control and samples treated with marinade only. This observation suggested th at low levels of fecal coliforms might have been present in the dry spice rub ingredients. Aerobic plate counts Aerobic microorganisms (Table 4-2) were less than 6 log CFU/g, for all treatments through 21 days storage. In genera l, aerobic plate counts (APC) in creased for all treatments as storage time increased. The contro l (plain goat meat) had the l east amount of aerobic counts on Day 0 (when compared to other treatments). In itially on Day 0, APCs for the control were significantly lower (P < 0.05) when compared to treatment 4. On Day 7, AP Cs were significantly lower (P < 0.05) when compared to treatme nt 3. A similar finding was observed on Day 14,

PAGE 45

45 when APCs were significantly lower ((P < 0.05) for treatment 2, when compared to all other treatments. This could be due to the presence of marinade in treatments 2 and 4. There were no significant differences (P > 0.05) in APCs among treatments for Day 21. No significant increase in APCs was revealed over time, through 21 days storage, for the goat ribs that were marinated or marinated and rubbed with spice. APCs for th e control ribs increase d significantly (P < 0.05) after 14 and 21 days storage. This finding suggest ed a continuous antimicrobial effect of the marinade against the aerobic microorganisms. The growth of aerobic microorganisms in the vacuum packaged system suggested th e existence of facultative anaerobes. Psychrotroph counts In general, psychrotrophic counts increased as storage time increased (Table 4-3) for all treatments. Psychrotrophs counts were less than 4 log and not significantly different (P > 0.05) from each other at Day 0. After Day 0, signifi cant differences (P < 0.05) were noted between treatments. A similar trend was observed for ps ychrotrophic and APCs, wherein the marinade with and without the spice rub displayed antimicrobial propertie s. Treatment 3 (Goat + Spice Rub) had the highest count, followed by the control (plain goat meat). The significant increase (P < 0.05) between Day 0 and Day 7 and the sign ificant decrease between Day 7 and 14 of treatment 4 could be due to contamination of the media. Microbial growth is stimulated by a rich medium such as fresh meat. Anaerobic plate counts Anaerobic microorganisms were present in all th e treatments, at the end of the storage time (Table 4-4). There was no signi ficant increase (P > 0.05) in an aerobic counts over storage days. Anaerobic counts for treatment 3 were initially si gnificantly different (P < 0.05) from the other three treatments. The presence of anaerobes on Day 0 suggested that they may be facultative, and the spice may have contained microorganism s. During Days 7 and 14, the control had

PAGE 46

46 significantly higher (P < 0.05) anae robes counts, when compared to all other treatments. The addition of marinade with and without the spi ce rub resulted in signifi cantly lower (P > 0.05) anaerobic counts. This observation revealed anti microbial properties in the marinade plus spice rub. Product Analysis The pH analysis The pH values varied between 5.79 and 6.40 (Table 4-5). On Day 0, pH values for treatments 2 (goat + marinade), and 4 (goat meat with marinade and spice rub) were significantly lower (P < 0.05) than the ot her two treatments. The pH values for Days 7, 14, 21 were significantly lower (P < 0.05) for treatments 3 and 4, when compared to treatments 1 and 2. Normal meat pH (beef) with good keeping qualities in refrigerate d state has values between 5.4 and 5.7 (Gill & Newton, 1981). At the isoelectric poi nt of proteins the pH value ranges from 5.0 to 5.4, and the water holding capacity (WHC) is at its lowest. On either side of the isoelectric point, WHC increases steadily with pH (Young et al., 2005). Because alkaline polyphosphates (pH of 9.8) were used in this study, a higher pH value and WHC are to be expected. Salt interferes with this phenomenon by shifting from the isoele ctric point to a more acidic pH. Hamm (1982) found that WHC improved with pH up to 7.5 at least. pH values never reached 7.5 in this study, but were less than 6.5. Values of pH closest to the ne utral point (pH 7.0) may promote microbial growth: spoila ge bacteria multiply rapidly at high meat pH, consequently shortening shelf life. Proximate analysis The moisture values were similar (P > 0.05) for all treatments (Table 4-6). The mean moisture value reported by the USDA SR 19 (2006) is 75.84%. This result is a mean for edible portions.

PAGE 47

47 Moisture analysis performed fo r Boer goats by Webb et al. (2005) and Tshabalala et al. (2003) revealed 69.4%. The moisture values reported by the researchers are similar to the values obtained in this study. Boer goat has an averag e of 10.5% fat (Tshabalala et al., 2003; Webb et al., 2005). Differences observed when comparisons are done among data imply other sources of variation (sex, age, nutrition, breed, weight). There was no si gnificant difference (P > 0.05) among treatments regarding protein percentage. Ash values of Tr eatment 3 were significantly different (P < 0.05) from those of Treatment 1 a nd 2 (Table 4-6). This disparity may be due to the existence of variability in the loin muscle s, and the presence of the spice rub. Cost analysis A comparative cost analysis was performed to determine the production costs and retail values for the formulated four treatments applie d to the goat ribs (Table 4-8). The price of the goat carcass was calculated based on purchasi ng price $8.59/ kg, processing fees $1.10/ kg, and boning price $0.44/ kg. The non meat ingredients cost s were calculated using the percentages in the formulations for the production of 100 kg batch of goat ribs. A mark up of 30% was used as an average for a processed meat product being sold. A serving of vacuum packaged seasoned raw goat ribs would cost the consumer $11.74/kg All uncooked beef st eaks retail for $11.92/kg, all pork chops for $6.94/kg, and USDA-ERS retail chicken composite for $3.63/kg. The calculated retail price for the goat ribs is not excessive, and is sli ghtly higher than pork price. Trained Sensory Evaluation The trained panelists found differences am ong the four treatments regarding overall tenderness (Table 4-7). Overall te nderness varied from slightly te nder to moderately tender. On Days 0, 14, and 21 there was no significant diffe rence (P > 0.05) among treatments. On Day 7, panelists rated overall tenderness in the control significantly lower (P < 0.05) than ribs that were marinated and treated with the sp ice rub. The ribs were rated sli ghtly tender, and the marinated-

PAGE 48

48 spice rub ribs were rated modera tely tender. This observation sugge sted that the marinadespice rub functioned to increase tenderness in the ri bs. In addition, storage time had no significant effect (P > 0.05) on overall tendern ess through 21 days. These results may be due to the use of young goats (6 months of age). In general, m eat from young goats is more tender than older goats (Gaili et al.,1972, Riley et al., 1989). Kannan (2001) also found that vacuum packaged leg, shoulder, and loin cuts in were slightly more tender than those in air-permeable film. Goat flavor intensity was similar (P > 0.05) for all treatments through 14 days storage. After 21 days storage, goat m eat treated with spice rub and a combination of spice rub and marinade had significantly lower (P < 0.05) goat flavor intensity th an the control ribs. The data suggested that the spice rub func tioned to minimize goat flavor inte nsity in presence and absence of marinade. Except for the control sample, stor age time had no effect (P > 0.05) on goat flavor intensity. Goat flavor intensity in the control sample increased significantly (P < 0.05) after 21 days storage from moderately bland (3.89) to sl ightly intense (5.50). Pane lists detected a sour and sulfur-like odor in the cont rol samples after 21 days, which was attributed primarily to microbial degradation.

PAGE 49

49 Marinated Vacuum Packaged Heat and Serv e Goat Ribs refrigerated for 42 days at 4 1oC Microbiological Analysis Aerobic plate counts There was no significant difference (P > 0.05) among the four treatments on Day 0 (Table 4-9). On Day 7, only the treatment containing mari nade only had no detectab le microbial growth. On Day 28, no microorganisms were detected in all treatments. Po ssible sources of errors were methodology, aerobes reaching the death phase, lim ited oxygen in the package, and presence of Bacillus cereus Because the goat ribs were cooked before vacuum packaging, no strict aerobic microorganisms should have been present. The existence of these specific microbes suggests either a contamination from the air during the co oling process, or the oxy gen permeability of the package. Overall there were variations among all treatments. Treatments 2 and 4 showed the least microbial counts. The vacuum packaged cooked marinated goat ribs with a spice rub applied (treatment 4) were acceptable. All the other treatments developed either a rancid offflavor, or an off odor. Psychrotroph counts Psychrotrophic organisms counts varied from 0 to 5.95 log CFU/g. (Table 4-10) Psychrotrophic counts for treatments 1 and 2 we re significantly lower (P < 0.05) on Day 0 when compared to treatments 3 and 4. Except for the spice rub, the data had a decrease in psychrotrophic organisms after 21 days and thr ough 42 days for all treatments. This observation suggested that the spice blend mi ght have contributed to microbi al contamination of the meat. The psychrotrophic counts remained less than 6 log CFU/g for all treatment.

PAGE 50

50 Anaerobic counts No total anaerobic counts were detected on Da y 0 (Table 4-11). However, after Day 7, total anaerobes were detected in all sample s except for treatment 2. The values for total anaerobes through the shelf life st udy were between 0 and 6.05 log. There was an almost 3 log increase from Day 14 to Day 21. This sharp increa se could be attributed to the packaging not being oxygen free. Another suggestion would be th e presence of facultative anaerobes. On Day 28, there was 2.65 log of anaerobe bacteria in treat ment 2 which so far had 0 microbial count. A methodology error may have caused the 0 bacterial counts for treatment 2 through time, with the exception of Day 28. The package may also have had oxygen present inside it. For the control, there was no significant difference (P > 0.05) between Days 7, 14, 21, 28, and 35. Days 0 and 42 microbial counts (0 log) were significantly different (P < 0.05) from days 7, 14, 21, 28, and 35 for all treatments. There was an increase on Day 21 for treatment 3 (spice rub) followed by a slide decrease at Day 28. The microorganisms need ed time to grow after Day 0, but reached a peak between Day 21 and 28. At Day 42, no anaerobe s microorganisms were detected suggesting a passage from the stationary phase to the death phase. Lactic Acid Bacteria counts The presence of lactic acid bacteria in meat products is less damaging because of the slow growth, leading to a longer shel f-life of meat in vacuum pack age (Blickstad, 1983). Because the shelf life of lamb has been found to be shorter than beef and pork (Shaw et al., 1980; Egan and Shay, 1984), goat meat should follow the same path. Vacuum packaging has the role of inhibiting spoilage microbes (pseudomonads) a nd allowing the dominance by low spoilage lactic acid bacteria (Babji et al., 2000). Initial flora, pH of meat, prevalence or absence of facultative anaerobes will however influence the dominance of lactic acid bacteria (Grau, 1980, 1981). In Table 4-12, the bacteria were eith er absent or present at very low levels in the meat on Day 0.

PAGE 51

51 There was a significant increase in the microbial counts from Day 14 to Day 21, except for treatment 2. The highest (P < 0.05) counts occurred in the treatment containing a combination of apple cider vinegar and spice rub on Day 21. The lactic acid data demonstrated that the marinade was effective in controlling the growth of lac tic acid bacteria. The microorganisms may have reached their stationary phase during Days 21 and 28, and their death phase during Day 35 (for treatment 2) and Day 42 (treatments 1, 3 and 4). The application of the spice rub and the meat itself may have been sources of contamination even though the control also registered high microbial counts. Spice blend analysis Analysis of spices revealed a slimy muco idal off-white colony. The colonies were identified as Bacillus cereus This bacterium was isolated prim arily from the spice rub blend, and sporadically on the goat meat. Comm on sources of infection of this specific microorganism are: raw, dried or processed foods, spices, soil, air, water, dust, animals, meat products, starchy foods, vegetables. This organism was also found on the goat meat (raw, and cooked). Srivastava et al. (1981) and Sinha and Ma ndal,(1977) isolated Enterobacter sp., Escherichia coli and Klebsiella sp. and Bacillus cereus from frozen goat meat. This bacterium can adapt to acidic conditions, heat, ethanol, salt, and hydroge n peroxide after prior exposit ion (Browne and Dowds, 2002). Consequently, the shelf life study was terminated. Product Analysis The pH measurements The pH values (Table 4-13) varied between 5.81 and 6.78, with the highest pH corresponding to Day 42 of the control treatmen t. There was no significant difference in pH values (P < 0.05) between Day 0 and Day 42 of the control. On all days of storage, goat meat formulated with marinade alone or in combina tion with spice rub had significantly lower (P <

PAGE 52

52 0.05) pH values when compared to goat meat w ith spice rub (except for spice rub only on Day 42) and the control. The presence of lactic acid bacteria may not have cont ributed to the decrease in pH reported for the treatments. The data sugges ted that the decrease in pH was due largely to the addition of the acetic acid in the marinade. Proximate analysis Protein, Fat, and Ash values (Table 4-14) were similar (P > 0.05) for all treatments. Moisture content was significantly higher (P < 0.05) for the control when compared to the spice rub only treatment. Except for values for Fat a nd Ash, proximate in this study are similar to values reported by the USDA Nutritive Value of th e Edible Part of Food. The closest animal to goat was lamb. Broiled lamb loin (3oz of lean and fat) had values of 52% moisture, 24.7% fat, and 23.5% protein. Cost analysis A comparative cost analysis was performed to determine the production costs and retail values for the formulated four treatments applie d to the goat ribs (Table 4-15). The price of the goat meat was calculated based on purchasi ng price $10.09/kg, processing fees $1.10/kg, and boning price $0.44/kg. The non meat ingr edients costs were calculated using the percentages in the formulations for the production of 100kg batch of goat ribs. A mark up of 30% was used as an average for a processed meat product bei ng sold. One pound of vacuum packaged seasoned cooked goat ribs would cost the consumer $7.19, or $15.84/kg. No product of this type exists on the market for goat. Similar Heat and Serve va cuum packaged marinated products exist for pork on the market. Chilis Mesquite Smoked and Seasoned Baby Back Pork Ribs retails for $18.81/kg, while Lloyds Barbeque Seasoned & Smoke d Baby Back Pork ribs and Tony Romas Baby Back Ribs respectively sell for $16.87/kg a nd $12.97/kg. The cost analysis for the vacuum packaged seasoned cooked goat ribs did not in clude labeling, transpor tation, and advertising.

PAGE 53

53 This Heat and Serve goat rib product has some success potential. Consumers desire in the United States for convenience (cut up meats, marina ted, ready to eat meals) will make this heat and serve goat product a success once on the market. Thiobarbituric Acid Reactive Substances This study (Table 4-16) shows variability in TBARS among treatments and during the storage time. A maximum increase in TBAR S was observed for all samples on Day 28. Significant differences (P < 0.05) over time we re observed for the control and treatment 4. TBARS increased significantly (P < 0.05) for the control on Day 0 from 0.68 to 4.10 mg malonaldehyde/ kg on Day 28. In accordance, TBAR S increased significantly (P < 0.05) for treatment 4 on Day 0 from 0.78 to 2.52 mg malona ldehyde/ kg on Day 28. Some spices such as rosemary, garlic, spices have antioxidant pr operties (Bishov et al., 1977 ; Chang et al., 1977; Houliahan et al. 1984, 1985; Ba rbut et al., 1985), onions, a nd green peppers (Watts, 1962) improve flavor stability during st orage. The presence of spices also may have counteracted the prooxidant effect of the salt. Trained Sensory Evaluation Except for the Control, all treatments had sim ilar (P > 0.05) goat fla vor intensity through 28 days storage time (Table 4-17). Sensory tastin g was discontinued for the control after day 28 because of off-flavor that could be associated to rancidity. The panelists rated all samples slightly bland (4.00) to sligh tly intense (5.68). Because age ma y be a factor with flavor, Schnfeldt et al. (1993a) found th at the younger the goats are (1030 kg), the more desirable flavor. Overall, there was no si gnificant difference (P > 0.05) be tween treatments through the 42 days shelf life, regarding overall tenderness. Scores for all trea tments varied between slightly tender and moderately tender. Th e different treatments did not seem to have an effect on the overall tenderness of the ribs. The product was acceptable. Using goat meat and a spicy

PAGE 54

54 formulation to produce processed food, results in an acceptable sensory quality (Breukink and Casey, 1989; Tshabalala et al., 2003 ; Rhee et al., 2003). Smith et al (1974) found that goat meat has the same juiciness, but less tenderness, a nd less overall satisfaction when compared to pork, beef, and lamb at comparable maturity and fa tness. Schnfeldt et al. (1993a) found that goat meat was less tender, had more residue, shear fo rce resistance, and collagen content than sheep meat. Sen et al. (2004) also found goa t meat less tender than sheep meat. Consumer Sensory Evaluation A total of 82 panelists participated in th e consumer sensory evaluation for goat ribs prepared with topical rub only, and ribs prepared with a combination of marinade and spice rub. Approximately 46.3% of the consumer panelists were male, while 53.7% were female. The age group varied from under 18 and over 60 (Tab le 4-18). Approximately 78.1% of the panelists were in the age range of 18 to 29, and 41.5% of all panelists had eaten goat meat before, compared to 58.5% that were tasting goat meat for the first time in their lives .Approximately 94.1% of the panelists consumed goat meat more than once a year, but not more than once a month. In addition, their demographics were dive rse: the United States, the Caribbean, Canada, South America, and Asia. Consumer Sensory Panel Analysis Treatment 4 was rated significantly higher (P < 0.05) in meat flavor intensity when compared to treatment 3 (Table 4-19). The consum er panelists rated the flavor of the meat for both samples between like slightly to like modera tely. Panelists rated th e overall flavor of treatment 4 significantly higher (P < 0.05) than treatment 3. Th e texture of both samples was similar (P > 0.05). The rating for overall accep tance was significantly different between treatments (Table 4-19). The panelists scored both samples be tween like slightly and like moderately. The consumer panelists were also more likely to purchase the goat meat that had

PAGE 55

55 been marinated and a spice rub applied over goat meat with a spice rub applied only. These two treatments were significantly different from each other (P < 0.05). Among the panelists (46.3% male, and 53.7% female), 50% will buy goat me at with a spice rub only versus 70.8% for marinated goat meat with a spice rub applied. These sensory results suggested the potential success of the marinated a nd spice rubbed goat meat.

PAGE 56

56 Table 4-1. Mean fecal coliform counts for vacu um packaged raw goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 21 days (log CFU/g) Treatments* Day 0 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21 1 1.30a,w 0.00x 0.00b,x 0.50ab,wx 2 0.70b,w 0.00x 0.00b,x 0.00b,x 3 1.20ab 0.25 1.32a 0.77a 4 0.77ab 0.37 0.65ab 1.15a *1: Control, 2: Goat + marina de, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub a-b means in same column with different supe rscript are significantly different (P < 0.05). w-x means in same row with different superscript are significantly different (P < 0.05). Each mean value represents four measurements. Table 4-2. Mean aerobic plate counts for vac uum packaged raw goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 21 days (log CFU/g) Treatments* Day 0 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21 1 2.07b,w 3.35ab,w 5.70a,x 5.25x 2 3.07ab 3.42ab 2.45b 4.75 3 3.60ab 3.95a 5.35a 4.90 4 4.62a,w 2.32b,x 5.45a,w 5.35w *1: Control, 2: Goat + marina de, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub a-b means in same column with different supe rscript are significantly different (P < 0.05). w-x means in same row with different superscript are significantly different (P < 0.05). Each mean value represents four measurements. Table 4-3. Mean psychrotrophic counts on vacu um packaged raw goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 21 days (log CFU/g) Treatments* Day 0 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21 1 3.65w 7.25a,x 5.98a,x 7.40a,x 2 3.80w 5.95c,w,x 6.51a,x 6.85b,x 3 2.60w 6.25b,x 5.81a,x 7.75a,y 4 2.00w 6.10bc,x,y 3.42b,w,x 6.65b,y *1: Control, 2: Goat + marina de, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub a-c means in same column with different supe rscript are significantly different (P < 0.05). w-y means in same row with different superscript are significantly different (P < 0.05). Each mean value represents four measurements.

PAGE 57

57 Table 4-4. Mean anaerobic counts on vacuum packaged raw goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 21 days (log CFU/g) Treatments* Day 0 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21 1 0.00a 3.02a 3.53a 0.57 2 0.00a 2.07b 1.20b 1.65 3 2.55b 1.82b 1.85b 1.17 4 0.00a 2.57ab 1.57b 1.24 *1: Control, 2: Goat + marina de, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub a-b means in same column with different superscr ipt are significantly different (P < 0.05). Each mean value represents four measurements. Table 4-5. Mean pH values for vacuum packaged raw goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 21 days Treatments* Day 0 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21 1 6.22ab 6.20a 6.20a 6.10a 2 5.99b,x 6.26a,w 6.23a,w 6.03ab,x 3 6.40a,w 5.99c,x 5.98b,x 5.95b,x 4 6.05b,w 6.14b,w 6.02b,wx 5.79c,x *1: Control, 2: Goat + marina de, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub a-c means in same column with different supers cript are significantly different (P < 0.05). w-x means in same row with different superscript are significantly different (P < 0.05). Each mean value represents four measurements. Table 4-6. Proximate analysis for vacuum packaged raw goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 21 days Formulations* Moisture (%) Fat (%) Protein (%) Ash (%) 1 67.20 13.48b 14.50 1.98b 2 65.37 17.22a 14.70 1.87b 3 67.64 11.22b 14.82 2.98a 4 67.41 13.34b 15.60 2.51ab *1: Control, 2: Goat + marina de, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub a-b means in same column with different superscr ipt are significantly different (P < 0.05). Each mean value represents four measurements.

PAGE 58

58 Table 4-7. Trained sensor y evaluation scores on overall tender ness and goat flavor intensity for vacuum packaged raw goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 21 days Storage time Parameter Treatment Day 0 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21 1 5.6 5.7b 6.4 5.5 2 5.6 6.0ab 5.76 5.3 3 5.8 6.2ab 5.9 5.4 Overall tenderness1 4 5.8 6.6a 6.1 5.9 1 3.9,x 4.5wx 5.0wx 5.5a,w 2 4.2 4.3 4.8 5.2ab 3 3.8 4.1 4.4 4.0c Goat flavor intensity2 4 3.2 4.12 4.2 4.2bc *1: Control, 2: Goat + marina de, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub a-c means in same column with different supers cript are significantly different (P < 0.05). w-x means in same row with different superscript are significantly different (P < 0.05). Each mean value represents four measurements. 1Score Scale. 8 = extremely tender, 7 = very tender 6 = moderately tender, 5 = slightly tender, 4 = slightly tough, 3 = moderately tou gh, 2 = very tough, 1 = extremely tough. 2Score Scale. 8 = extremely intense, 7 = very in tense, 6 = moderately intense, 5 = slightly intense, 4 = slightly bland, 3 = moderately bland, 2 = very bland, 1 = extremely bland. Table 4-8. Comparative cost an alysis for 100 kg batches of vacuum packaged raw goat ribs Ingredients Goat meat ($) Meat 858.00 Water 0.03 Salt 0.72 Apple Cider Vinegar 13.00 Sodium Tripolyphosphate 2.48 Black pepper 5.60 Cayenne pepper 2.12 Dried Thyme 4.56 Garlic powder 2.30 Onion powder 1.20 Paprika 5.70 Vacuum pouches 7.04 Total cost/ 100 kg batch 902.75 Total cost/ 1 kg 6.27 Mark up (30%) 270.82 Total cost/ 100 kg batch 1173.57 Total cost/ 1 kg 11.74 Total cost/ 454g 5.33

PAGE 59

59 Table 4-9. Mean total aerobic counts for refriger ated vacuum-packaged heat and serve goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 42 days. (log CFU/g) Treatments* Day 0 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21 Day 28 Day 35 Day 42 1 1.62x 1.71a,x 3.71ab,w,x 5.48b,w 0.00x 2.32bc,w,x 3.17a,w,x 2 3.30x 0.00b,y 1.59b,x,y 5.17b,w 0.00y 0.00c,y 0.00b,y 3 2.12x,y 1.00ab,x,y 5.78a,w 5.79ab,w 0.00y 6.02a,w 3.31a,w,x 4 2.15x,y 1.81a,x,y 2.72b,x,y 6.20a,w 0.00y 3.27b,x 0.95ab,x,y *1: Control, 2: Goat + marina de, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub a-b means in same column with different supers cripts are significantly different (P < 0.05). w-y means in same row with different superscrip ts are significantly di fferent (P < 0.05). Each mean value represents four measurements. Table 4-10. Mean total psychrotrophs counts for refrigerated vacuum-packaged heat and serve goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 42 days. (log CFU/g) Treatments* Day 0 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21 Day 28 Day 35 Day 42 1 0.00b,y 1.76b,x,y 5.95a,w 1.70bc,x,y 0.00b,y 2.60x,y 3.53a,w,x 2 1.00b 0.50b 1.56b 3.28b 2.20a 2.34 1.80b 3 3.72a,w,x 1.38b,y,z 5.67a,w 5.61a,w 0.00b,z 5.86w 2.91ab,x,y 4 3.07a,w,x 4.30a,w 5.16a,w 0.00c,x 0.00b,x 3.39w 2.84ab,w,x *1: Control, 2: Goat + marina de, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub a-c means in same column with different supers cripts are significantly different (P < 0.05). w-y means in same row with different superscrip ts are significantly di fferent (P < 0.05). Each mean value represents four measurements. Table 4-11. Mean total anaerobes counts for refr igerated vacuum-packaged heat and serve goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 42 days. (log CFU/g) Treatments* Day 0 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21 Day 28 Day 35 Day 42 1 0.00x 1.62a,wx 2.96a,w 2.61bc,w 2.69b,w 2.29ab,w 0.00x 2 0.00x 0.00b,x 0.00b,x 0.00c,x 2.65b,w 0.00b,x 0.00x 3 0.00z 1.09ab,y,z 3.21a,x,y 6.05a,w 4.78a,w,x 4.61a,w,x 0.00z 4 0.00y 1.71a,x,y 3.09a,w,x 3.23ab,w,x 2.81b,w,x 4.53a,w 0.00y *1: Control, 2: Goat + marina de, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub a-c means in same column with different supers cripts are significantly different (P < 0.05). w-z means in same row with different superscrip ts are significantly di fferent (P < 0.05). Each mean value represents four measurements.

PAGE 60

60 Table 4-12. Mean total lactic aci d bacteria counts for refriger ated vacuum-packaged heat and serve goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 42 days. (log CFU/g) Treatments* Day 0 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21 Day 28Day 35 Day 42 1 1.07x,y 1.60x,y 3.06a,x 5.29c,w 5.13a,w 1.71ab,x,y 0.00y 2 0.00x 0.91w,x 1.68b,w,x 0.00d,x 2.75b,w 0.00b,x 0.00x 3 1.00x,y 0.00y 3.26a,w,x 5.71b,w 2.78b,xy2.90a,x 0.00y 4 1.00x,y 1.84x,y 3.13a,x 6.40a,w 2.80b,x 3.25a,x 0.00y *1: Control, 2: Goat + marina de, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub a-c means in same column with different superscr ipts are significantly different (P < 0.05). w-z means in same row with different superscrip ts are significantly di fferent (P < 0.05). Each mean value represents four measurements. Table 4-13. Mean pH values for refrigerated vacu um-packaged heat and serve goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 42 days. Treatments* Day 0 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21 Day 28 Day 35 Day 42 1 6.70a,w 6.63a,w,x 6.63a,w,x 6.38a,y 6.70a,w 6.46a,x,y 6.78a,w 2 6.17b,w,x,,y 6.10b,x,y 6.05c,y 5.89c,z 6.20c,w,x6.24b,v,w 6.36b,v 3 6.59a,w 6.50a,w,x 6.42b,x,y 6.25b,z 6.33b,y,z 6.43a,x,y 6.44b,x,y 4 6.20b 6.16b 5.95c 5.95c 6.14c 5.81c 5.99c *1: Control, 2: Goat + marina de, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub a-c means in same column with different supers cripts are significantly different (P < 0.05). v-z means in same row with different superscrip ts are significantly di fferent (P < 0.05). Each mean value represents four measurements. Table 4-14. Mean proximate values for refriger ated vacuum-packaged heat and serve goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 42 days. % content Treatments* Moisture Protein Fat Ash 1 57.83a 22.08 16.25 3.65 2 55.82ab 26.66 14.60 3.38 3 52.79b 23.50 17.74 3.52 4 56.60ab 21.32 16.75 3.28 *1: Control, 2: Goat + marina de, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub a-b means in same column with different superscrip ts are significantly diff erent (P < 0.05). Each mean value represents four measurements.

PAGE 61

61 Table 4-15. Comparative cost an alysis for 100 kg batches of vac uum packaged heat and serve goat ribs Ingredients Heat and Serve Goat Ribs Meat 1007.60 Water 0.03 Salt 0.72 Apple Cider Vinegar 13.00 Sodium Tripolyphosphate 2.48 Black pepper 5.60 Cayenne pepper 2.12 Dried Thyme 4.56 Garlic powder 2.30 Onion powder 1.20 Paprika 5.70 Vacuum pouches 173.00 Total cost/ 100 kg batch 1218.31 Total cost/ 1 kg 12.18 Mark up (30%) Total cost/ 100 kg batch 1583.80 Total cost/ 1 kg 15.84 Total cost/ 454g 7.19 Table 4-16. Mean TBARS for refrigerated vacuum-p ackaged heat and serve goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 42 days. mg of malonaldehyde// kg sample Treatments* Day 0 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21 Day 28 Day 35 Day 42 1 0.68x 0.82ab,x 0.84x 2.00w,x 4.10w 1.74w,x 2.19w,x 2 4.29 1.81a 0.70 1.46 4.79 3.73 1.25 3 0.34 1.25ab 0.66 0.90 4.58 0.42 2.30 4 0.78x 0.49b,w 1.41w,x 0.81w,x 2.52w 1.70w,x 0.86w,x *1: Control, 2: Goat + marina de, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub a-b means in same column with different supers cripts are significantly different (P < 0.05). w-x means in same row with different superscrip ts are significantly di fferent (P < 0.05). Each mean value represents four measurements.

PAGE 62

62 Table 4-17. Mean trained sensory panel scores for goat flavor intensity and overall tenderness for heat and serve goat ribs stored at 4 1oC for 42 days Storage time Parameter Treatment* Day 0 Day 7 Day 14 Day 21 Day 28 Day 35 Day 42 1 4.5w,x 4.6w,x 5.7w 4.0x 5.3a,wx DP DP 2 4.6 4.8 5.2 4.7 5.2 5.3 5.5 3 4.5 5.2 4.9 4.7 4.7 5.2 4.0 Goat flavor intensity1 4 4.0 4.8 4.9 4.7 5.2 4.9 4.6 1 5.3 6.5 6.5a 5.8 6.0 DP DP 2 4.9 5.9 5.9ab 5.7 5.2 5.5 5.0 3 5.5 5.6 6.1a 6.0 6.2 5.6 6.0 Overall tenderness2 4 5.3 5.6 4.9b 5.5 6.0 6.0 6.0 *1: Control, 2: Goat + marina de, 3: Goat + spice rub, 4: Goat + marinade + spice rub a-b means in same column with different superscr ipts are significantly different (P < 0.05). w-x means in same row with different superscrip ts are significantly di fferent (P < 0.05). Each mean value represents four measurements. DP: Discontinued Panel 1Score Scale. 8 = extremely intense, 7 = very in tense, 6 = moderately intense, 5 = slightly intense, 4 = slightly bland, 3 = moderately bland, 2 = very bland, 1 = extremely bland 2Score Scale. 8 = extremely tender, 7 = very tender 6 = moderately tender, 5 = slightly tender, 4 = slightly tough, 3 = moderately tou gh, 2 = very tough, 1 = extremely tough. Table 4-18. Age data for consumer sensory pa nelists evaluating goat ri bs containing topical spice rub only and a combination of mari nade and spice rub and stored at 4 1oC for 42 days Age group (years) <18 18-29 30-39 40-49 >50 Overall 4.9% 78.1% 6.1% 6.1% 4.8% 100%

PAGE 63

63 Table 4-19. Consumer sensory panel scores for ev aluating goat ribs cont aining topical spice rub only, and a combination of marinade and spice rub and stored at 4 1oC for 42 days Parameter Treatment Sample Goat meat + Spice rub 5.9b Goat Flavor Intensity1 Goat meat + Spice rub + Marinade 6.8a Goat meat + Spice rub 5.8b Overall Flavor2 Goat meat + Spice rub + Marinade 6.8 a Goat meat + Spice rub 5.7 a Texture3 Goat meat + Spice rub + Marinade 6.2 a Goat meat + Spice rub 5.8b Overall Acceptance4 Goat meat + Spice rub + Marinade 6.6 a Goat meat + Spice rub 3.4 a Purchase Intent5 Goat meat + Spice rub + Marinade 2.9b a-b means in same row with different superscrip ts are significantly di fferent (P < 0.05). Each mean value represents four measurements. 1Score Scale: 1 = Dislike extremely, 2 = Dislike very much, 3 = Dislike moderately, 4 = Dislike slightly, 5 = Neither like or dislik e, 6= Like slightly, 7 = Like m oderately, 8 = Like very much, 9 = Like extremely 2Score Scale. 1 = Dislike extremely, 2 = Dislike very much, 3 = Dislike moderately, 4 = Dislike slightly, 5 = Neither like or dislik e, 6= Like slightly, 7 = Like m oderately, 8 = Like very much, 9 = Like extremely 3Score Scale. 1 = Dislike extremely, 2 = Dislike very much, 3 = Dislike moderately, 4 = Dislike slightly, 5 = Neither like or dislik e, 6= Like slightly, 7 = Like m oderately, 8 = Like very much, 9 = Like extremely 4Score Scale. 1 = Dislike extremely, 2 = Dislike very much, 3 = Dislike moderately, 4 = Dislike slightly, 5 = Neither like or dislik e, 6= Like slightly, 7 = Like m oderately, 8 = Like very much, 9 = Like extremely 5Score Scale. 1 =Definitely Would, 2 = Probably Would, 3 = Might or Mi ght Not, 4 = Probably Would Not, 5 = Definitely Would Not.

PAGE 64

64 CHAPTER 5 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS Objectives of this study were to develop re frigerated value-added vacuum packaged raw goat ribs, evaluate proximate composition, pH, se nsory and microbiological characteristics of four formulations on the raw goat rib formul ations, develop a conve nient and marketable refrigerated vacuum packaged heat and serve goat meat rib product, and evaluate proximate composition, pH, Thiobarbituric Acid Reactive Substances (TBARS), cost sensory and microbiological characteristics of four heat and serve goat rib formulations. Four different formulations were designed as treatments for th e goat ribs. They were as following: the control (plain goat ribs), treatment two ( goat ribs marinated in apple cide r vinegar), treatment three (goat ribs with spice rub applied), and treatment four (marinated goat ribs with spice rub applied). Typical formulations, processing and cooking st eps for the development of the goat products were followed. Results from this study suggested that mari nating and applying a spice rub to goat ribs could produce an acceptable va lue added product. Except for Bacillus cereus being isolated primarily from the spice rub blend, and sporadi cally on the goat meat, no organisms of public health safety ( Staphylcoccus aureus Salmonella, Escherichia coli 0157:H7, and Listeria monocytogenes ) were found. The trained and consumer panelists found the products acceptable, regarding goat flavor intensity, overall tenderness, texture (con sumer panel only). Manufacturing a heat and serve marinated vacuum packaged goat rib product could be a successful venture. Consumers have a desire in the United States fo r convenience (cut up meats, marinated, ready to eat meals) products. There is a high marketabil ity potential for the raw marinated vacuum packaged goat ribs and the heat and serve ma rinated vacuum packaged goat ribs. Consumers should not be deterred because of the price. Sh elf-life recommendation would be 21 days for the

PAGE 65

65 marinated vacuum packaged raw goat ribs, and 42 days for the heat and serve vacuum packaged goat ribs.

PAGE 66

66 LIST OF REFERENCES Aberle, E. D., Forrest, J. C., Gerrard, D. E., a nd Mills, E.W. 2001. Principles of Meat Science. 4th Edition. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Company, Dubuque, IA. Alford, C., Strickland, J., Lewis, K., Simps on, S. 1998. Meat Goat Pr oduction in Georgia. University of Georgia Cooperative Extension Service. Available at: http://pubs.caes.uga.edu/caespubs/pubcd/b1168-w.html Accessed: Dec. 2005. Agricultural Marketing Resour ce Center. 2006. Meat Goats prof ile. Iowa State University. Available at http://www.agmrc.org/agmrc/commodity/ livestock/goats/Meat+goats+profile.htm AOAC. 2000. Official methods of analysis of the associati on of official analytical chemists, 17th ed. Association of Official Anal ytical Chemists, Washington, DC. Babji, Y., Murthy, T.R.K., and Anjaneyulu, A.S. R. 2000. Microbial and sensory quality changes in refrigerated minced goat meat stored unde r vacuum and in air. Small Rumin. Res. 36: 75-84. Barbut, S., Josephson, D.B. and Maurer, A.J. 1985. Antioxidant properties of rosemary oleoresin in turkey sausage. J. Food Sci. 50: 1356. Bishov, S.J., Masuoka, Y. and Kapsalis, J.G. 19 77. Antioxidant effect of spices, herbs and protein hydrolyzates in freeze-dried model sy stems: Synergetic action with synthetic phonolic antioxidants. J. F ood Process. Preserv. 1:153. Blickstad, E. 1983. Growth of lactic acid bacteria with special reference to meat and meat products. Ph.D. thesis. Swedish Meat Research Institute, Kavlinge. Bjrkroth, J. 2005. Microbiological ecology of marinated meat pr oducts. Meat Science 70: 477480. Boland, M., Bosse., A. 2006. What is Value-a dded Agriculture? Ag ricultural Marketing Resource Center. Available at: http://www.agmrc.org/agmrc/business/ge ttingstarted/whatisvalueaddedag.htm Accessed: Nov. 2006. Brennand, C. P. and Lindsay, R. C. 1982. Sensory di scrimination of species-related meat flavors. Lebensm. Wiss. u. Technol., 15: 249-252. Breukink, H.R., Casey, N.H. 1989. Assessing the acceptabi lity of processed goat meat. S. Afr. J. Anim. Sci. 19: 76-80. Browne, N. and Dowds, B.C.A. 2002. Acid stress in the food pathogen Ba cillus cereus. J. of Appl. Microbiol. 92: 404-414.

PAGE 67

67 Calhoun, C. M., Eilert, S. J., Mandigo, R. W. 1996. Connective tissue/ac idic phosphate preblend effects on reduced fat frankfur ters. J. of Food Science, Vo l. 61 (2): pp. 459-464. Institute of Food Technologists. Casey, N. H., 1992. Goat meat in human nutritio n. In: Proceedings of the V International Casey, N. H., and Van Niekerk, W. A .1988. The Bo er Goat II. Growth, nutrient requirements, carcass and meat quality. Small Ruminant Res., 1: 355-368. Casey, N.H., Van Niekerk W. A., Webb, E. C. 2003. Goat m eat. Encyclopeadia of Food Sciences and Nutrition. Acad emic Press, London, pp. 2937-2944. Chang, S.S., Ostric-Matijasevic, B., Hsieh, O.A. L. and Huang, C.L. 1977. Natural antioxidant from rosemary and sage. J. Food Sci. 42: 1102. Chizzolini, R., Zanardi, E., Dorigoni, V., and Gh idini, S. 1999. Calorific value and cholesterol content of normal and low-fat meat and meat products. Rev. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 10: 119-128. Code of Federal Regulations. 2006. Terminology; Adulteration and Misbra nding Standards. Title 9, Vol.2. 9CFR301.2. Available at: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/ 01jan20061500/edocket. access.gpo.gov/cfr_200 6/janqtr/9cfr301.2.htm Accessed: Nov. 2006. Coffey, L. 2002. Sustainable Goat Production: M eat Goats. Appropriate Technology Transfer for Rural Areas. Available at: http://attra.ncat.org/at tra-pub/PDF/meatgoat.pdf Accessed: Oct. 2006. Colomer-Rocher, F., Kirton, A. H Mercer, G. J. K., and Dunganzich, D. M. 1992. Carcass composition of New Zealand Saanen goats sl aughtered at different weights. Small Rumin. Res. 7: 161-173. Cosenza, G. H., Williams, S. K., Johnson, D. D., Sims, C., and McGowan, C. H. 2003. Development and evaluation of a cabrito sm oked sausage product. Meat Sci. 64: 119124. Cosenza, G. H., Williams, S. K., Johnson, D. D., Sims, C., and McGowan, C. H. 2003. Development and evaluation of a fermented cabr ito snack stick product. Meat Sci. 64(1): 51-57. Cross, H. R., Leu, R., and Miller, M. F. 1987. Scope of warmed-over flavor and its importance to the meat industry. Page 1 in Warmed-Over Flav or of Meat. A..J. St. Angelo and M. E. Bailey, ed. Academic Press, Orlando, FL. Degner, R. L., and Locascio, J. D. 1988. Distri bution of goat meat in selected metropolitan Florida markets. Industry Rep. 88:3, The Florid a Agricultural Market Research Center, Food and Resource Economics Department, University of Florida, Gainesville.

PAGE 68

68 Egan, A.F. and Shay, B.J. 1984. The microbiology of vacuum packaged pork. Proceedings of the 30th European Meeting of Meat Research Workers Bristol Meat Rese arch Institute, 215216. Eilert, S. .J. 2005. New packag ing technologies for the 21st century. Meat Science, 71:122127. Farris, M. 2003. Ethnic holidays best opportunity to market goats, Goat Rancher Feb:10-13. Food and Agriculture Organization. 2003. Goat: population. Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific. Available at: http://www.fao.org/docre p/004/ad452e/ad452e2z.htm Accessed May 2007. Forrest, J.C,.Aberle, E. D., Hedrick, H.B., Judge, M. D., Merkel, R. A. 1975. Principles of Meat Science. W.H. Freeman and Company, San Francisco, CA Foster, R. J. 2004. Meating Consumer Exp ectations. Food Product Design. Available at: http://www.foodproductdesign.com/a rticles/1204CS.html .Virgo Publishing, Phoenix, AZ Fraser, R. 2004. The market for goat meat in Al abama. Alabama A&M University. Available at: http://www.ams.usda.gov/TMD/FSMIP/FY2002/AL0356.pdf Accessed April 2006. Gadiyaram, K. M., and Kannan, G. 2004. Comparis on of textural properties of low-fat chevon, beef, pork, and mixed-meat sausages. S. Afr. J. An ima. Sci. 34(Suppl.1): 168-170. Gill, C.O. and Newton, K.G. 1981. Microbiology of DFD meat. In D.E. Hood & P.V. Tarrants (Eds.), The problem of dark-cutting in b eef (pp. 305-327). The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff. Gipson, T. A., 1999. Demand for goat meat: implic ations for the future of the industry. Proceedings of the 14th Annual Goat Field Day, Langston, OK, pp. 23-29. Gipson, T. A. 1999. Demand for goat meat: implic ations for the Future of the Industry. In Demand for Goat Meat: Implications for the Fu ture of the Industry, Langston University, E (Kika) de la Gaza Institute for Goat Research, http://www2.luresext.edu/goats/lib rary/field/goat_meat_demand99.htm Accessed December 18, 2005 Grau, F.H. 1980. Inhibition of the anaerobic growth of brochothrix thermosphacta by lactic acid. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 40: 443-446. Grau, F.H. 1981. Role of pH, lactate and anaerob iosis in controlling the growth of some fermentative gram negative bacteria. Appl. Environ. Microbiol. 42: 1043-1050. Hamm, R. 1960. Biochemistry of me at hydration. Adv. Food Res. 10:355. Hamm, R. 1982. Uber das Wasserbindungsvermge n des Fleisches. Fleischerei 33: 590-599.

PAGE 69

69 Hansen, R. 2003. Goat industry profile. Agric. Marketing Resource Center, Iowa State Univ., Ames. Hornstein, I. and. Crowe, P. F. 1963. Meat fl avor: Lamb. J. Agric. Food Chem., 11: 147-149. Houlihan, C.M., Ho, C.T. and Chang, S.S. 1984. Eluc idation of the chemical structure of a noel antioxidant rosemaridiphenol, isolated from rosemary. J. Amer. Oil Chem. So. 61:1036. Houlihan, C.M., Ho, C.T. and Chang, S.S. 1985. The structure of rosmariquinoneA new antioxidant isolated from Rosmarinus officinalis L. J. Amer. Oil Chem. Soc. 62:96 IBISWorld Industry Report. 2005. Goat Farming in the US: 11242. Available at: http://www.ibisworld.com/industr y/retail.aspx?indid=61&chid=1 Information Resources Inc., 2002. What do Americans really eat? Consumer survey. Information Resources Inc., Chicago, Il. Available at: http://www.cpgnetwork.com/public/global/home/glo_thought_eat.htm Accessed: Nov. 2005. Jacobson, M. and Koehler, H. H.. 1963. Components of the flavor of lamb. Agric. Food Chem., 11: 336339. James, N. A., and Berry, B. W. 1997. Use of chevon in the development of low-fat meat products. J. Anim. Sci 75: 571577. Jimenez-Colmenero, F. Carballo, J., and Cofr ades, S. 2001. Healthier meat and meat products: their role as functional f oods. Meat Science 59: 5-13. Johnson, D. W. 1989. An evaluation of Florida oat meat: New elements and opportunities. Proceedings of Meat Goat Produc tion Conference, Tallahassee, Fl. Johnson, D. D. 1995. Floridas Meat Goat Industr y: Composition and Quality of Goat Meat Produced in Florida. University of Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. Circular 1153. Johnson, D. D., McGowan, C. H., Nurse, G., and Anous, M. R., 1995. Breed type and sex effects on carcass traits, composition and te nderness of young goats. Small Rum. Res. 17: 57-63. Kahan, T. B., Williams, S. K., Mobley, R., Jakes, A., Djeri, N., Ruiz, A., Sarjeant., K. The evaluation of Nonmeat Ingredients to Improve the Acceptability of Chevon Products for American consumers. Unpublished manuscript, University of Florida, Gainesville, FL. Kannan, G., Kouakou, B, and Gelaye, S. 2001. Co lor changes reflecting myoglobin and lipid oxidation in chevon cuts during refri gerated display. Small Rumin. Res 42: 6775.

PAGE 70

70 Ke, P.J., Cervantes, E. and Robles-Martinez, C. 1984. Determination of thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) in fish by an improved distillation-spectrophotometric method. J. Sci. Food Agric. 37: 1248-1254. Kirton, H.1988. Characteristics of goat meat, incl uding carcass quality and methods of slaughter. Goat Meat Production in Asia. Proceedings of a Workshop, Tando Jam, Pakistan,. IDRC, Ottawa, Canada, March 13-18, 1988 pp. 87-99. Luginbuhl, J-M. 1998. Breeds of Goats for Meat Goat Production and Production Traits. North Carolina State University. Available at: http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/an_sci/ext ension/animal/meatgoat/MGBreed.htm Accessed: Dec. 2005. Luginbuhl, J-M. 2000. Meat Goats Extension An imal Husbandry. Nort h Carolina State University. Available at: http://www.cals.ncsu.edu/an_sci/exten sion/animal/meatgoat/ahgoats_index.html Accessed: Dec. 2005. Madruga, M. S., Arruda, S. G. B., Narain, N., and Souza, J. G. 2000. Castration and slaughter age effects on panel assessment and aroma compounds of the mestio goat meat. Meat Sci. 56: 117125. Mahgoub, O., Kadim, I. T., Al-Saqry, N. M., and Al-Busaidi, R. M. 2004. Effects of body weight and sex on carcass tissue distribu tion in goats. Meat Sci. 67: 577-585. McGowan. 2003. Development and evaluation of a cabrito smoked sausage product. Meat Sci. 64: 119-124. McKenna, D. R., Strachan, D. S., Miller, R. K., Acuff, G. R., and Savell, J. W. 2003. Cranberry Juice Marinade Improves Sensory and Microb iological Properties of Vacuum-packaged Lamb Chops. J. Muscle Foods. 14:207-220. McKenzie-Jakes, A. 2004. Markets for Goat M eat. Florida A&M University. Available at: http://smallfarms.ifas.ufl.edu/Liverstock/goats.htm Accessed: Dec 2005. McMillin, K. W., and Brock, A. P. 2005. Producti on practices and processing for value-added goat meat. J. Anim. Sci. 83 (E. Suppl.): E57E68. Melton, S. L. 1990. Effects of feeds on flavor of red meat: a review. J. Anim. Sci. 68: 44214435. Mize, J., and Kelly, J. 2004. Americas dynamic meat case. Cryovac Retail Wrap-up, December. OMahony, M. 1986. Sensory evaluation of food: St atistical Methods and Procedures. Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, NY.

PAGE 71

71 Owen, J. E., Norman, G. A., and Jones, N. S. .D.. 1978. Studies on the meat production characteristics of Botswana goats and shee p. Part III. Carcass tissue composition and distribution. Meat Sci. 2: 59-74. Pearson, A. M. and Gillette, T. A. 19 96. Processed meats. Pages 2 and 210241. 3rd ed. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY. Phelps, O., McMillin, K.W., Gebrelul, S., Mella d, K.E., Simon, G., Dawkins, L., Pinkerton, F., and Windham, M. 1999. Carcass traits and sens ory evaluation of meat from goats of differing breeds, ages, and conformation. J. Anim. Sci. (Suppl. 1): 14 (Abstr.) Pinkerton, F., Scarfe, D., and Pinkerton, B. 1991. Meat Goat Production and Marketing. No. M01. Langston University Goat Rese arch Extension. Available at: http://www.luresext.edu/goats /library/fact_sheets/m01.htm Accessed: Dec. 2005. Pinkerton, F. 2002. Demand for goat meat s till growing. Goat Rancher July: 31-34. Pinkerton, F. and Harwell, L. 2002. Marketi ng channels for meat goats. Accessed at http://www.clemson.edu/agronomy/goats/handbook/market.html Dec 2005. Pinkerton, F., and McMillin, K. 2005. Goat population grows, still cant match demand. Goat Rancher March:7-19. Rhee, K.S. 1978. Minimization of further lipid oxid ation in the distillation 2-Thiobarbituric acid test of fish and meat. J. Food Sci. 43: 1176. Rhee, K. S., Myers, C. E., and Waldrom, D. F. 2003. Sensory properties and lipid oxidation in aerobically refrigerated cooked ground goat meat. Meat Science 66: 189-194. Rhee, K. S., Myers, C. E., and. Waldron, D. F. 2003. Consumer sensory evaluation of plain and seasoned goat meat and beef products. Meat Science 65: 785789. Riley, R.R., Savell, J.W., Johnson, D.D., Smith, G.C., and Shelton, M. 1989. Carcass grades, rack composition and tenderness of sheep and goats as influenced by market class and breed. Small Rumin. Res. 2: 273-280. Romans, J. R., Costelllo, W. J., Carlson, C. W ., Greaser, M. L., and Jones, K. W. 1994. The Meat We Eat. Thirteenth Edition, In terstate Publishers, Inc. p.27-43. Sams, A. R. 2001. Poultry Meat Proce ssing. CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, Florida. SAS Institute Inc. 2002. SAS Users Guide: Statistics SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC. Schnfeldt, H. C., Naud, R. T., Bok, W., van Heerden, S. M., and Smit, R. 1993a. Flavour-and tendernessrelated quality ch aracteristics of goat and sheep meat. Meat Sci. 34: 363-379.

PAGE 72

72 Schnfeldt, H. C., Naud, R. T., Bok, W. van Heerden, S. M., and Smit, R. 1993b.Cooking and juiciness-related quality charac teristics of goat and sheep meat. Meat Sci. 34: 381-394. Sen, A. R., Santra, A., and Karim, S. A. 2004. Carcass yield, composition and meat quality attributes of sheep and goat under semi arid conditions. Meat Sci. 66: 757-763. Shahidi, F. 1994. Flavor of Meat and Meat Products. First edition. Chapman & Hall. Shahidi, F. 1998. Flavor of meat, meat products, and seafoods. Blackie Academic & Professional, London, New York. Shaw, B.G., Harding, C.D. and Taylor, A.A. 1980. The microbiology and storage stability of vacuum packed lamb. Journal of Food Technology 15: 397-405. Sheradin, R., Hoffman, L. C., and Ferreira, A. V. 2003a. Meat quality of Boer goat kids and Mutton Merino lambs 1 commercial yields a nd chemical composition. Anim. Sci. 76: 6371. Sheradin, R., Hoffman, L. C., and Ferreira, A. V. 2003b. Meat quality of Boer goat kids and Mutton Merino lambs 2 sensory meat evaluation. Anim. Sci. 76: 73-79. Sinha, B. K. and Mandal, L. N. 1977. Studies on bacteriological quality of market meat and public health importance. Indian J. Anim. Sci. 47: 478. Sloan, A. E. 2003. What, when, and where Americans eat: 2003. Food Technol 57(8): 48-50, 52, 54, 56, 58-60, 62-66. Small Farms Research Center, Alabama A & M University. 2005. Briefing on Goat Issues. Risk Management, Issue 3. Smith, G. C., Pike, M. I., and Carpenter, Z. L. 1974. Comparison of the palatability of goat meat and meat from four other animal species Journal of Food Science, 39: 11451146. Smith, G. C., Pike, M. I., Carpenter, Z. L., and Shelton, M. 1978. Effect of age and quality level on the palatability of goat meat. J. Anim. Sci. 46: 1229-1235. Soroka, W. 2002. Fundamentals of Packaging Tec hnology. Institute of Packaging Professionals. Naperville, Illinois. Srivastava, K. C., Paz, A. A., Saridakis, H. O., P opper, I. O. P., and S.R.P. De Castro, S. R. P.. 1981. Microbiology of Frozen Goat Meat and Toxin Production by Bacillus cereus Isolated therefrom. Zbl. Bakt Hyg., Abt. Orig. B 174: 125-132. Swize, S.S., Harris, K. B., Savell, J. W., and Cr oss, H. R. 1992. Cholesterol content of lean and fat from beef, pork, and lamb cuts J. Food Compos. Anal. 5: 160-167.

PAGE 73

73 Tarladgis, B.G., Watts, B.M. and Younath an, M.T. 1960. A distillation method for the quantitative determination of malonaldehyde in rancid food. J. Amer. Oil Chem. Soc. 37: 44. The Goat Industry: Structure, Concentrati on, Demand and Growth. USDA, Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. Electronic Repor t from APHIS (2004). Accessed in July 2006. The Pennsylvania State University College of Agricultural Sciences. 2000. Agricultural Alternatives: Meat Goat Production. Available at: http://agalternatives.aers.psu.edu/ livestock/meatgoat/meat_goat.pdf Accessed: Dec. 2005. Toledo, R. T. 2001. Marination technologies. IFT Annual MeetingNews Orleans, Louisiana. Available at: http://ift.confe x.com/ift/2001/techprogram/paper_6024.htm Accessed: Dec. 2005. Tompkins, R.B. 1986. Microbiology of ready to eat meat and poultry products. Advances in meat research. Vol. 2. AVI Publishing Co. p 89-121. Tshabalala, P.A., Strydom, P.E., Webb, E.C. and de Kock, H.L. 2003. Meat quality of designated South African indigenous goat and sh eep breeds. Meat Sci. 65: 563-570. USDA. 2004. Announcement of value-added producer grant application deadlines and funding levels. USDA Rural BusinessCoop erative Service. Fed. Reg. 69: 33349. USDA AMS. 2006. Meat Goat: Selection, Carcass Ev aluation & Fabrication Guide. Available at: http://www.lsuagcenter.com/NR/rdonlyres/B8FE3706-64DC-417F-A592B8DEC14B4D9F/27779/pub2951MeatGoatPubLOWRES.pdf Accessed: June 2006 USDA Animal and Plant Health Inspection Se rvice, 2005. The Goat Industry: Structure, Concentration, Demand and Growth. Available at: http://www.aphis.usda.gov/vs /ceah/cei/bi/emergingmarketc ondition_files/goatreport0908 05.pdf Accessed: June 2006. USDA Economic Research Service. 2007. Retail pr ices for beef, pork, and poultry cuts eggs, and dairy products. Available at : http://www.ers.usda.gov/data/m eatpricespreads/Data/cuts.xls Accessed : June 25, 2007. USDA Food Safety and Inspection Service. 2006. Go at from Farm to Table. Meat Preparation Fact Sheets. Available at: http://www.fsis.usda.gov/Fact_Sheet s/Goat_from_Farm_to_Table/index.asp Accessed: May15, 2006. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Service. 2002. Census of Agriculture 2002. Available at http://www.nass.usda.gov Accessed Oct. 2006.

PAGE 74

74 USDA National Agricultural Statistics Servic e. 2006. Livestock Inve ntory Up, USDA Reports: Cattle, Sheep and Goat Numbers on the Rise. Available at: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/n ass/SheeGoat//2000s/2006/SheeGoat-01-272006.pdf Accessed: Feb 2006. USDA National Agricultural Statistics Serv ice. 2007. Sheep and Goats. Available at: http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda /current/SheeGoat/S heeGoat-02-02-2007.txt Accessed May 2007. USDA National Nutrient Database for Standa rd Reference, Releas e 19. 2006. Raw Goat, Cooked and Roasted goat. Available at: http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodc omp/Data/SR19/reports/sr19fg17.pdf Accessed May 2007. Watts, B.M. 1962. Meat products. In Symposium on Foods: Lipids and Their Oxidation, p. 202. H.W. Schultz, E.A. Day and R.O. Si nnhuber (Ed). AVI Publishing Co., Westport, CN. Webb, E. C., Casey, N. H., Simela, L. 2005. Goat meat quality. Small Rumin. Res. 60: 153-166. Wheaton, J. E., Carlson, K. M., Windels, H. F., and Johnson, L. J. 1993. CIDR: A New Progesterone Releasing Intravag inal Device for induction of Es trus and Cycle Control in Sheep and Goats. Animal Reproduction Science 33: 127-142. Wikipedia Foundation. 2006 Domestic Goat. Wikipedia The Fr ee Encyclopedia. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Goat Accessed: Nov 18, 2006. Wikipedia Foundation. 2007. Domestic Goat: Goat Uses. Available at: http://en.wikipedia.org /wiki/Domestic_goat#Meat Accessed: May 2007. Winrock International. 1986. Strategies for expanding goat meat production, processing, and marketing in the southeastern United St ates. Winrock International, Morriton, AR. Young, O.A., Zhang, S.X., Farouk, M.M., Podmore, C. 2005. Effects of pH adjustment with phosphates on attributes and f unctionalities of normal and high pH beef. Meat Science 70: 133-139.

PAGE 75

75 BIOGRAPHICAL SKETCH Noufoh Djeri was born in Bassar, Togo in 1978. She graduated from the Institute of Genech, France in 1997. In 2005, she received her Bachelor of Science degree from the Department of Animal Sciences, University of Fl orida. She started her masters research in 2005 after receiving a departmental graduate assistantship for her studies. She will earn her Master of Science degree in August 2007. After graduation, Noufoh plans to pursue a Doctor of Philosophy degree under Dr. Sally K. Williams supervision.


xml version 1.0 encoding UTF-8
REPORT xmlns http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitss xmlns:xsi http:www.w3.org2001XMLSchema-instance xsi:schemaLocation http:www.fcla.edudlsmddaitssdaitssReport.xsd
INGEST IEID E20101118_AAAAAY INGEST_TIME 2010-11-18T11:06:34Z PACKAGE UFE0021469_00001
AGREEMENT_INFO ACCOUNT UF PROJECT UFDC
FILES
FILE SIZE 57599 DFID F20101118_AAAQEG ORIGIN DEPOSITOR PATH djeri_n_Page_60.pro GLOBAL false PRESERVATION BIT MESSAGE_DIGEST ALGORITHM MD5
3114d3ba31e59496c17de3eba49f6570
SHA-1
0c005ee2c8abc852065bf9ac79bf9c88a52a8157
3109 F20101118_AAAPXJ djeri_n_Page_06.txt
db5a804c708ec23913dde2d20b3cd847
72322aa33a03d593354479b4a9152ab6dfbbe669
107119 F20101118_AAAPSM djeri_n_Page_52.jpg
b546f97f74c0f4082aee5d9e6802fb4d
4a6af3ffac4f537c61c2f18d6cd8ca7218a10f5f
34857 F20101118_AAAQEH djeri_n_Page_61.pro
958f1ea4f9a67b616f62caca9f4c43b9
03ee4619d40eb2e227ac0440ab47cd117c4a7951
30474 F20101118_AAAPXK djeri_n_Page_60.QC.jpg
c20f1d50fc7ee1e387cbd8ca2e656c70
1fa7d563fa771462755b92a6674bd50112f10c55
1767 F20101118_AAAPSN djeri_n_Page_61.txt
a3f25bac65fdd36cb1186e61e232c4b9
0788861b9a4821607f63cba2b9400f338d0de3c4
52996 F20101118_AAAQEI djeri_n_Page_64.pro
7fa18fd79e1ce8950bde71582d25450d
8a5f5a7faede0f27a49c5348a42baaac63d0cbe3
2585 F20101118_AAAPNQ djeri_n_Page_60.txt
d79defd8a86e62da9ffc495ac84bc0fa
302b57f5e049210dc9c1dacc1c5c7673b8993621
1053954 F20101118_AAAPXL djeri_n_Page_32.tif
3c22e07e2264e10d6bc0a96dc2ff09ff
6ba111d36134cce34f1046eef7717fa0e26fbe67
2952 F20101118_AAAQEJ djeri_n_Page_65.pro
467dc2e495f5dba1a2676e4106a48bd8
600fe4c233bfe96aa9ab5783b898e8de12c1b9b9
9383 F20101118_AAAPXM djeri_n_Page_73thm.jpg
8c878395bb02baa74f1c44c7f3e532c1
03d936243489443dd121ed025e150d3e861e7bf1
F20101118_AAAPSO djeri_n_Page_33.tif
4e2ee780301988ba82c1bbc1cdfc38c7
95ea291bc98ad66381fe7d195bd9c8ceec575370
2206 F20101118_AAAPNR djeri_n_Page_17.txt
1eb669ae35fce10f4b87f11f0f8aa678
8efe4e9a4e669a2bfc1843d7b71b53701e9737a3
57221 F20101118_AAAQEK djeri_n_Page_66.pro
7ad206573528c25ab133e473a4a9f410
27c28c7263400d6233c545374929d2c06e9a5d62
111624 F20101118_AAAPXN djeri_n_Page_34.jp2
85bde6dc7d034c6821ebd91c457d3cc1
c75375f5104e4bba25b3d697d9e5b1d48f77b4a0
F20101118_AAAPSP djeri_n_Page_08.tif
65f0f85a3c663118b27b7d1d57b8ced3
4acd6d2565a07561e6299a826a94f99606e05076
2632 F20101118_AAAPNS djeri_n_Page_67.txt
130bf0c668edf10ac3630d4494e7429e
c5bd1e1dd5acdc5173320ce2a8405bdee2eab766
64227 F20101118_AAAQEL djeri_n_Page_67.pro
b4ce0647a827a2174a9f3c35c3ffacb5
b0d091e782748c5cef088fce6357365896813d34
7348 F20101118_AAAPXO djeri_n_Page_56thm.jpg
068cc0c47e23312747ca1508b36421b9
6dfa7cefc9e0c6867b4d6a94db9378d06c983175
38134 F20101118_AAAPSQ djeri_n_Page_12.QC.jpg
6418c1366d177b80474454b4d46f9dee
b5ac7b1f7d3b09d5427b90278a9950cb0472b48d
1051977 F20101118_AAAPNT djeri_n_Page_74.jp2
722e0cd5807b5667bf19064a9a8ac1f8
2dfc679a24466e933bb27e87ec07f1fa157c170f
62140 F20101118_AAAQEM djeri_n_Page_68.pro
5cfff44864595f2c0fdc8cc44ed99170
959ce399faf7092607c3f335b94afd6e95edfa7f
87391 F20101118_AAAPXP djeri_n_Page_57.jp2
2e3a0d187dc3cf87c210a6a13ff76f95
6d3f43512541521e75d42e4d1a51ce202a6355ca
111390 F20101118_AAAPSR djeri_n_Page_11.jp2
7ca18f1659dda2a214801d39273ad9a7
c6d4f8f79addb8cc2ffa6d2dca0ece3a2c2553da
113512 F20101118_AAAPNU djeri_n_Page_05.jpg
9b35647395b2f17f63acd0f4b937f0ad
4422a75d57ffaa577675ae5a11a22920944bad2a
60802 F20101118_AAAQEN djeri_n_Page_69.pro
fb9a8786b06f5e0998ba10e92bf18cd9
bee3d9a60782cbdf13e002c39ea376d8b79d09c7
9175 F20101118_AAAPXQ djeri_n_Page_24thm.jpg
8b5895074810ec5dbdde89fde418bd96
923f8fd778debd422ee7162105585adaf5788e8e
2041 F20101118_AAAPSS djeri_n_Page_22.txt
7e226815624fbd559239449350030619
afcf443347668d7833f9652c8810d9f94309f95b
34626 F20101118_AAAPNV djeri_n_Page_51.QC.jpg
7135d380d3c97466f716db97a6d536d2
dde679d28ff136acaaf6ed7fd84003b5865c86fa
57814 F20101118_AAAQEO djeri_n_Page_70.pro
d20015e3628cf045f312f5cb43d2e810
7dc4949cecf3b1b630a30cd6eede4b0b34254cd2
F20101118_AAAPXR djeri_n_Page_37.tif
7545fcdfe346ad23bbbc247d31c66cdc
7e3495da2eb947c10be2b322e0890818342b40df
9109 F20101118_AAAPST djeri_n_Page_12thm.jpg
d4b2fed5fb11bf17944a47c9d60be65a
3f60a166c1bd2de5734358fa651cfb365682b465
5829 F20101118_AAAPNW djeri_n_Page_43thm.jpg
c915a3df491d6f37102beee8b1d6aa1c
0f313678cef05197989d6b226d5d55107b883bbd
63032 F20101118_AAAQEP djeri_n_Page_71.pro
0646e4964ae31dd183e288733eb91fd4
536f1e640e241b48d0978537d73ae52a7b19dd1f
83721 F20101118_AAAPXS djeri_n_Page_62.jpg
be9c2a87cf9f9b8520f28221acc2adaf
9b6afa1377bfd8010c5115f638891a5d5de4fc06
130094 F20101118_AAAPSU djeri_n_Page_71.jpg
23b8caa11f076d5ec52854be28b071bd
296e2cc79b19dbd766c3e748fa6d86a04b0974ff
11068 F20101118_AAAPNX djeri_n_Page_75.QC.jpg
880afab82fb597c28fbc9cd57ca0dfde
e5cb146430ab9ea89a0f32bc6659a111e9e9c14f
47456 F20101118_AAAQEQ djeri_n_Page_74.pro
5d020000007b312c8ab52004a65661d2
1bbf0d5ba8cd37125449872413a6621c8133dc2e
4836 F20101118_AAAPSV djeri_n_Page_02.jp2
458522324ca33e711366959ee85e8f53
0394826a36b9a88781bc98dc616a3eff3bd769c1
28373 F20101118_AAAPNY djeri_n_Page_30.QC.jpg
4865d1cee2b9070227d996321881d63e
f8ab484e4589a36b477c2cfb42b6a4932a6538ed
14077 F20101118_AAAQER djeri_n_Page_75.pro
b108479ecc71af13395ecf976f658aee
a4958bf7d45d3098b7ab85a5cf76638e5259c6a0
F20101118_AAAPXT djeri_n_Page_54.tif
3613173d4e89e87142b34cda71844505
71383c653306cb72c54d3002ac7d8a984d4b177f
122252 F20101118_AAAPSW djeri_n_Page_14.jp2
d41e4903ec3a19a6103750772c6e0074
c9aac68089d5f80876e60e122d315af796a7c2a8
6663 F20101118_AAAPNZ djeri_n_Page_58thm.jpg
53d319fcd9bdbeb8e87cbecf66ee6647
2639dbc1b307c9e45439b8cd9c459c9eaccc73ee
4561 F20101118_AAAQES djeri_n_Page_04.txt
6c3f57e62e3e05ef5de3d899d4ec41a2
e298150b1a79c5ec736457ca4b47e858b9821ff4
19690 F20101118_AAAPXU djeri_n_Page_07.QC.jpg
b1055f9b87eceaa60deabc19bb438d8e
7b75d613eece5cdd77d4d83bc7919af0803cb6a4
59932 F20101118_AAAPSX djeri_n_Page_73.pro
a1fcf3c66f063cedce22b1c2c4b09b2a
d71837a6e2d56c4b888b7a06c63e4350e497d2b4
1535 F20101118_AAAQET djeri_n_Page_07.txt
bff071d385178c0f4079b4db7ca5b465
300d7dbccaf558e12cbc8708158328564241d2d8
F20101118_AAAPXV djeri_n_Page_15.tif
9cd16838485e686d87980e9101be848a
be3fc0c6fa3931c41167a95e71f00d29e5258462
F20101118_AAAPQA djeri_n_Page_47.tif
9913209476c9dde2b9028933d73656c4
e5162380b59ab36b669e996d6b35344cabb11721
45001 F20101118_AAAPSY djeri_n_Page_41.jpg
62b2d06d70352a73a6da76724954f98a
1cd9c7d0e8ebf393acc9ef0050dd621bbb45b18a
1092 F20101118_AAAQEU djeri_n_Page_09.txt
fe99124b48a38b093f92f30fd99650a9
3cf301d676ba1d8ba714c11bcb7511c712fad1c2
5860 F20101118_AAAPXW djeri_n_Page_48thm.jpg
a5e23cf040121cb7d0bf3afd7db8e7f9
1a87385523d0fe6b4f4dd81c0e0556e963437e2b
63427 F20101118_AAAPQB djeri_n_Page_59.pro
276ebdd448256995b7f0064b06dc0624
6e63bb8009e152928152f2902c2d3011c6ce1b73
123654 F20101118_AAAPSZ djeri_n_Page_59.jp2
953a48f977b60229d407f8919ce52ded
0e7535131d18a575840fe64646a82333e994bd9c
2073 F20101118_AAAQEV djeri_n_Page_11.txt
ced4240e1d5c4b90906fde0100589378
f5c282b2ddaf5432736635dd80f0ca568bcdeb95
35814 F20101118_AAAPXX djeri_n_Page_70.QC.jpg
7253a94b4f9656dbe80f3cf9c85461d3
d7182a83962adf79a7bcc6a6cdc79974ee0cfb4d
52357 F20101118_AAAPQC djeri_n_Page_52.pro
c02df177f5f3588626725db17639d1dc
2646187bb4c887960a0eb035deab347d1c8495fd
2182 F20101118_AAAQEW djeri_n_Page_12.txt
b527e467009fcc7cc2bff4a7dd516384
ce91d7cb123678f6e934c9858736b0046f179694
9102 F20101118_AAAPXY djeri_n_Page_13thm.jpg
4b5afc8ae9b7ed2537c344870ccc6216
ecaa0adcee4664cdcbcdad3d635aeb9338a727fb
110582 F20101118_AAAPQD djeri_n_Page_04.pro
5f5e7573086975e179f3a4894268326f
84786a060419e4f8232780a2a82f9690d4286157
25271604 F20101118_AAAPVA djeri_n_Page_69.tif
78eb162031943136eb0dd996daf704f0
991c6e82c61b2323ef8ee1a8ae6e7b48070be90e
2152 F20101118_AAAQEX djeri_n_Page_13.txt
1b95de06a333704e8c03f84fbdbc5c29
b770edcad9c31137ebf0ec2ff8016d83907a7f43
105958 F20101118_AAAPXZ djeri_n_Page_10.jp2
ee207735190c322eecd198c5f3fa2c98
9eb2db38ea6373ace843299f33309d282c2fded2
8634 F20101118_AAAPQE djeri_n_Page_22thm.jpg
ecb56c996a01d0f9f09008c34dd61731
e5258b156f66152dd80176b1eb22d663035bea92
8837 F20101118_AAAPVB djeri_n_Page_18thm.jpg
0d13a4f9bd795f3020018dce3951fcf6
fa40fa9e8b6226eb24ff047388ad36283a3d5554
2222 F20101118_AAAQEY djeri_n_Page_14.txt
10811a89f72dd2c3fe139db8b31e9580
f831cbea21017770b2395466cf58904194bd54fc
110161 F20101118_AAAPQF djeri_n_Page_18.jpg
dfa460c60f48a845bcb3cd25e110fd91
844c36ce9932f468047868a7e2443e189f37c56a
8593 F20101118_AAAPVC djeri_n_Page_65.jpg
c8c84c015c1bcdc3ea3648c679d80db1
cfe07dc09b94c3e204ff8e42e5427722190cead8
2134 F20101118_AAAQEZ djeri_n_Page_18.txt
4d309e3c049673635930d2e2586ff3e4
ffbacef1e42181a00ade98d07329c6a479d957bf
F20101118_AAAPQG djeri_n_Page_64.tif
b11df70ff6066910dbfe012129b9d9d1
dd4d3f36d12f4c3f957eabac0794938065cd0605
115818 F20101118_AAAQCA djeri_n_Page_53.jp2
08eaf297133275189baac5d3d81f25a8
d1ac330dc36cd5b190a592010ff7e7dc43468364
32820 F20101118_AAAPVD djeri_n_Page_46.QC.jpg
cb556b2f78244922f0375a71256e1e45
700a357dd8933c8309c5851f729ab29141ef9991
48016 F20101118_AAAPQH djeri_n_Page_10.pro
8ed87190bd2b09b80c8444f26f38eed0
58c548ed0d12de8ab20c8149e73859f0e30a6c84
99459 F20101118_AAAQCB djeri_n_Page_56.jp2
598b54ea6a418ed62ee2823130d70d66
19b0737b063b79161856ab915c001a3bce75505f
58708 F20101118_AAAPVE djeri_n_Page_42.jpg
8ee507ee33364aaf0fcbe5f3308f9ee1
0b512952e63b40f5eac1af33cdd400615538c0cb
9065 F20101118_AAAQHA djeri_n_Page_33thm.jpg
b83b12f6d9423944db404e42e672da16
8361917b3194b2e8d16b4bf796a4ed477cc67c8f
20415 F20101118_AAAPQI djeri_n_Page_41.pro
9fd800219457a557d809fbb5548dfa36
b3c0dfba6f2af212ec6de930a79b77ea49ec2d1e
92032 F20101118_AAAQCC djeri_n_Page_58.jp2
91732facb1b19d083fa4372875ce1000
e07b9445c0c168d5ba99dbf676acfa4b2bb50b6f
30406 F20101118_AAAPVF djeri_n_Page_49.QC.jpg
901a9d1a9b8f8b82bd94a8f474c39950
f794d12d8e08900092dea2a64d33202036129154
19214 F20101118_AAAQHB djeri_n_Page_42.QC.jpg
61b7b9425424f7065f241526abc9821d
568f2e3b5942969fa979f703e713520a3f89a621
53512 F20101118_AAAPQJ djeri_n_Page_15.pro
777cbd5d60a3c1d6b58df50cf3c14874
abe6d60551f7aa0122517c2d2edfba7ff4040b12
84601 F20101118_AAAQCD djeri_n_Page_62.jp2
9acbf5cfda1770d6b311c9d6214e76e3
4f49662d7a753921b737452b4dfeddf684ef2cd6
30517 F20101118_AAAPVG djeri_n_Page_42.pro
545f4452cc5d677779f6f5ae7f45955f
3ed293c69be438c8a3e37d35cd768d344881ecfb
35723 F20101118_AAAPQK djeri_n_Page_64.QC.jpg
0e4e445cf8a7121aedf07276e96e4b0c
b867b6f87b6dbc41e4b6003b88c4a814103a602a
116924 F20101118_AAAQCE djeri_n_Page_64.jp2
52d9b35a067d175e533fe68f9f4ee0f6
85b96f781301c086b2572aa28641c9112a0d744e
9056 F20101118_AAAPVH djeri_n_Page_38thm.jpg
730489bb91598a615d617cd43695d5b0
181fa0153bff03752afe3698ccd7015fa96afc57
3999 F20101118_AAAQHC djeri_n_Page_41thm.jpg
fc57c2d3b20df31a14be91f1c52b1779
c3843d3e322b9f2ae553574693a6bc81f980b55c
116786 F20101118_AAAPQL djeri_n_Page_15.jp2
4e3ad802b6947a6bdcdd234e09ae3f84
339e98fdd3b98fd8feccb0d82c90d739380580c7
10406 F20101118_AAAQCF djeri_n_Page_65.jp2
ef582940d9733d89dc61e21df7ca61eb
997794eb2da97885f15093d8f076f9a408460de8
F20101118_AAAPVI djeri_n_Page_63.tif
5d15f4175781d8de9c6f8dd51835277f
7ec819a0a2b59e25ac085c9d49dd3d8e93f65ef7
24783 F20101118_AAAQHD djeri_n_Page_05.QC.jpg
5627507eaaaa0aa404a6d1881e3388ae
a00c67e2bd32ead398a672faf3aaa6432540542a
1051982 F20101118_AAAQCG djeri_n_Page_68.jp2
2c8ce32e738ec1aa579f4def3ef04aa7
20c349bac449c5f5ace96da937b314de5bb5e548
2099 F20101118_AAAPVJ djeri_n_Page_08.txt
944dde623c0216ccdb8d860f80f7e1d5
6f5170317a476948a4491f7924445e9329ffed1c
8252 F20101118_AAAQHE djeri_n_Page_34thm.jpg
d72b5a427a69af7f3193a692967694d8
2368021e0152a637a77005ba171a15a79cf809bb
43810 F20101118_AAAPQM djeri_n_Page_62.pro
688dd5a2aa7243c231a97ba0f4d6d394
97bedcef695993727499aa153a851ba93dae4642
1051986 F20101118_AAAQCH djeri_n_Page_69.jp2
fa82b8dcb13c8ba73bb57c414acd8a7c
a9b3ab5b73f0a1eab26b5dff4254abcf0a4d7df1
88780 F20101118_AAAPVK djeri_n_Page_30.jpg
430899f4704d2777990cfb177b947db5
eb29410495c8aa9b35919b576a5d74e60457fb0f
36731 F20101118_AAAQHF djeri_n_Page_20.QC.jpg
cba800cac5e1e5fe3ab185f5164f5d2e
a4cb6ff33d06d66dd95b92846028dfbb5096779b
1051980 F20101118_AAAQCI djeri_n_Page_70.jp2
474227c46261f72f351df033c1f7868d
910c447dbcb52ffe2bb3688f4bc8dd7534875f61
598 F20101118_AAAPVL djeri_n_Page_75.txt
2eb923a1c7156c0bccccae940abfbae7
46b0394f848d97d1e3816fba60f83df2f4228ae5
2082 F20101118_AAAPQN djeri_n_Page_53.txt
41ef9acfa738f9ee2c2ee96b05fed2ed
1d6ac96f25b87d83e6162a56279b8e83a0c44f24
35141 F20101118_AAAQHG djeri_n_Page_22.QC.jpg
70b57f8a47449cd1962d245ca64d6124
43aeb6769e7a4cdb59f3d230827c0ecbbfddd5ed
1051963 F20101118_AAAQCJ djeri_n_Page_71.jp2
e028d4e65a25783fd74a087257c86bf5
59dd0b6b6dba3311845fd31a283476deec7791a1
115795 F20101118_AAAPVM djeri_n_Page_52.jp2
55b8e6dcb69271474893bca127d37ff8
4d5602c83d63e16d391fd9dec861a010bf31a145
94858 F20101118_AAAPQO djeri_n_Page_63.jp2
c9c99505a6943b00c14eef924d854c9a
1411d5c89d7aefdc78b6b7a0a342930551815b54
9146 F20101118_AAAQHH djeri_n_Page_66thm.jpg
3137d9ee64dd07e921e4ec1e2ce5841b
27bf21809ce0be72e65e9bbb0e802c147ae0f063
125170 F20101118_AAAQCK djeri_n_Page_72.jp2
2679275a5bcbebe909a9eeb9e634f3cf
a61ccec6dd9780f236081a27044b2f8b0b6d985d
51882 F20101118_AAAPVN djeri_n_Page_22.pro
e78f405ff88bb82da77fe56e535bb276
fbaad1aa7cd3cd742e40c9b1b3152a07663d56ab
7653 F20101118_AAAPQP djeri_n_Page_28thm.jpg
077c30b1932eb103f19316c0bf557e0b
6bbfa48dec2e04a3055538c8a0228e5391828a07
113383 F20101118_AAAQHI UFE0021469_00001.xml FULL
4812fed55c05b45bc6bb6f506abdc898
700ac883bfcf09654c439b99b370e79b0941e513
F20101118_AAAQCL djeri_n_Page_73.jp2
79933cc8dab3205d73785135af4bc482
0bdbe124e7e6f10b49f1ab0b37b2083381f62770
9031 F20101118_AAAPVO djeri_n_Page_31thm.jpg
ebc77076ed0e31b7cfbbb16cfe5887e2
9e326aa3bcd3e05be68c320da764d7b57f5d27bf
37849 F20101118_AAAPQQ djeri_n_Page_21.QC.jpg
87204211f5f30fc6d6542783e2701368
161f70b1be435c0f918461acd13c0e3b8fda4e29
7813 F20101118_AAAQHJ djeri_n_Page_01.QC.jpg
6ce3bdee5dea93a6f6f66e1b03a8537e
f4c43618380752d021a8b1b89a1e205ca3043f7d
34940 F20101118_AAAQCM djeri_n_Page_75.jp2
fc20503ec6553807b7c6fe261ead7eda
c649b54f8b88d6f68fb272182534cd7481312d1f
8800 F20101118_AAAPVP djeri_n_Page_54thm.jpg
fa10a4bbb6f761a95c82abee5456bcb2
808726a72bdfcb3dc0ee31b5e2379466c242a61c
55142 F20101118_AAAPQR djeri_n_Page_39.pro
596851254c9308db255aba1d50456f01
c28d0ed834d984587c9c74e8c46347a844aa2422
4967 F20101118_AAAQHK djeri_n_Page_07thm.jpg
f58a050ede9fb3fdaf55a81f09e19d39
716dfd4c98e36e33db3ae5f8899f10dcab7c15ae
F20101118_AAAQCN djeri_n_Page_03.tif
6ad041d785b3283efa799c5f98745e35
066d130cd19eac7d048d6575d4039fb81fdff672
24445 F20101118_AAAPVQ djeri_n_Page_62.QC.jpg
65f28bbe5015cec7d0b5ecce0a8b8004
9504a218be348cc98d2c29f60cbbdca99fda84b3
1051978 F20101118_AAAPQS djeri_n_Page_67.jp2
3afd309e31995ae4d5b44da5a379bed5
d151efa4860638c9eec3e335cd48474116603405
4726 F20101118_AAAQHL djeri_n_Page_09thm.jpg
bf60b111c568955c8f740240f6efd696
99ed2fbfaadf3179346e34d0bc474f89224422b7
F20101118_AAAQCO djeri_n_Page_05.tif
de4b5752bc1071d3393a5a0877b7df62
970f00772dff91cbb5c566bd30fa6cea63d7760a
F20101118_AAAPQT djeri_n_Page_24.tif
b176922fedd3b5c67438152e048d2196
74915575e436dde63c058658f09de74382fbab50
19625 F20101118_AAAQHM djeri_n_Page_09.QC.jpg
85379a3859c844b98e9256c326376d85
1b1ab2bb5376180ef188fb2e412d26493598c7c7
F20101118_AAAQCP djeri_n_Page_10.tif
b3be4895216d6314eb4e389e34c7e350
a9b67548c65e8ac165fc3d1307eb57fea2cbfe27
2476 F20101118_AAAPVR djeri_n_Page_69.txt
73c375bc0487a7f1b98459dafb9a91d9
7dbacaf292beccd42a0165620e5f34655f51dee2
F20101118_AAAPQU djeri_n_Page_06.tif
2ef56031967845148da69b58b139ac6a
bf3b07e1689180dd19b9784b420d17ee4676d47d
33912 F20101118_AAAQHN djeri_n_Page_11.QC.jpg
75331cc2b7cce466082c42e395315be2
9a1d745579daa6f33d5408ed188e9bac5ea29dc8
F20101118_AAAQCQ djeri_n_Page_12.tif
056f6a34f61cc342d1c70a7686e61a2a
155db20ceef7b493003c8741688b805d0505f515
38240 F20101118_AAAPVS djeri_n_Page_14.QC.jpg
0d01a9c6770cf312b3223e0371f031c2
8f8e3a79a8db61898f03f9a35817dea597edd6d8
36589 F20101118_AAAPQV djeri_n_Page_24.QC.jpg
c6d804e631904c58682b3d64193cb0aa
bf5d9d21f1a9f33f91e0f9d13bf6835ed990f222
8940 F20101118_AAAQHO djeri_n_Page_20thm.jpg
e87722a2c9fef9c82ea0e17223a08c92
d93caa4f929d8e6fbf0fff47fd855c921ca2b42b
F20101118_AAAQCR djeri_n_Page_13.tif
de6ddc730b4a770b198cf032ecc9edb1
2f38f79d6631d9a5d815887995f87f3d5e28f55a
109967 F20101118_AAAPVT djeri_n_Page_51.jp2
0045b36c420d0c34f2a72a96d2eaf8c6
310d8a01f97db7d2551167b7965c69c400707422
54381 F20101118_AAAPQW djeri_n_Page_18.pro
edcca5dcc1f86b225d6a0da247b3875c
2eab00c5f8170ef4aa3614a73ef3219e0fe50f72
37265 F20101118_AAAQHP djeri_n_Page_26.QC.jpg
c85b6ff1cd1eabd7ddb5f65f8d91bdc8
496362090da724932a1a180b64d3243da3bfc657
F20101118_AAAQCS djeri_n_Page_16.tif
71ab704e7142348c659f621ebf7f1aaa
131d3e32147aac4c87a714aa88d3fbba84f557e6
36165 F20101118_AAAPVU djeri_n_Page_23.QC.jpg
005c8865ae85f2fdcc95cbf1d128a964
428aeffaae2089c7edf0d53023afdca022286617
116888 F20101118_AAAPQX djeri_n_Page_20.jp2
c5b86dcafbd8290c8dc486c52127bb6f
0a27ad51d4fdef3f8dc3ddd687f2f9148899b71c
8693 F20101118_AAAQHQ djeri_n_Page_45thm.jpg
66960311c29a9ac8e257e82ce9029ed8
36e0fb44feae68ebbb006893248416e169a7de96
F20101118_AAAQCT djeri_n_Page_17.tif
af9451297b9ecf744d81b2e7df8c9a6e
b557aca42977c298eff5d46ff83df251ea16db61
F20101118_AAAPVV djeri_n_Page_09.tif
2bbbc6082e1ae78c566cd05d9cc91fa0
7e58dfee3bae4db78a6e055ae04e54caa22b1ac3
61571 F20101118_AAAPOA djeri_n_Page_09.jp2
85907ae2ab61e0198820519cc33b1abe
5bfb7f34a79dcd0e2659e5d422a5e9e492e08636
6370 F20101118_AAAPQY djeri_n_Page_57thm.jpg
f28d68a077e41fc3162902a2d1641660
ce2c707357f28e087c404e979531ad8e34c88834
8944 F20101118_AAAQHR djeri_n_Page_47thm.jpg
459fbf242186c86005b2ae60c33548f5
044e2c2c815af469e0bc50b582038d546a4180b1
F20101118_AAAQCU djeri_n_Page_19.tif
f41b313e44d3f44bd801797b90df2956
fe1ae4b591d2f8d96dc58b58b3802da1577f3196
111267 F20101118_AAAPVW djeri_n_Page_20.jpg
f631d963203492c1571adf3bcbb6b47a
e2e81ee7d1cda9c5b532a809a0d37ec24416e5aa
76320 F20101118_AAAPOB djeri_n_Page_06.pro
a4a3a0be4b2291c3898576e8a4397923
8a0c18a9e191421f4b2986921952e9482094f9e9
124720 F20101118_AAAPQZ djeri_n_Page_36.jp2
440bd3ff7fd7a39e2c145960d208e1b6
c800cb7465b744a72c6d3db5d803d7754d337b9f
7533 F20101118_AAAQHS djeri_n_Page_49thm.jpg
7c66eb345aa0c96bd4ac6bc6d5b8ef5c
7ab17e8ff1f2ae8753e52f90eb58a1fe00ff28b2
F20101118_AAAQCV djeri_n_Page_21.tif
1575a5dc9f8a2943fb00a691f3a23bad
faa9dfb3698f5c343e283338ae08288f5be50d3f
F20101118_AAAPVX djeri_n_Page_65.tif
fda4371a000fcb108995da3d8282a244
f952e16e06739755fb9dd4d29c1ee3b957cb7797
2238 F20101118_AAAPOC djeri_n_Page_35.txt
42f0f4daf5d75dcfae496068963d7610
ca63d80b99c1dcf8b2a5ca22653be7be5e914fa4
35925 F20101118_AAAQHT djeri_n_Page_53.QC.jpg
9c35fcb3ab15eeaad578cfc8ef188fff
95cbb57f8dd53ce6a94c08d7bbf600849f56e8b0
F20101118_AAAQCW djeri_n_Page_22.tif
44b509863d79042e026d9a879239f01a
5e3dd68f05f7c4d6c073e15c0cc84202545b957a
2286 F20101118_AAAPTA djeri_n_Page_55thm.jpg
3c4bcd9559f1e3ae879e057c54e51262
836f00ac6944101ae59b5df88707b276bf0f2c57
2481 F20101118_AAAPVY djeri_n_Page_73.txt
21aafd7fa8d87f950bdabcd0cd795cb8
cc5884450ef36e4c2b9e6c0ac276288423720984
37569 F20101118_AAAPOD djeri_n_Page_17.QC.jpg
f9d8ec13c385cdc3d5c7914bf446be2d
5aae7a4ef17d17bbc778f9d1be2e61f1cf85e234
36727 F20101118_AAAQHU djeri_n_Page_54.QC.jpg
f8e88cf94be3eea965a32a891e5e0870
6b304afc5e7db86e9beecf9b6cad5c8342c48510
F20101118_AAAQCX djeri_n_Page_29.tif
1dc32c1f963ac1a21b30f0ba2389d00d
c66f6e9ab1e85e45eb3b2457c1f5b148f635c15b
111616 F20101118_AAAPTB djeri_n_Page_39.jpg
976058c5ba8df3464bf8f1369cb46c38
b2e06def91c7c95b6d1c7cb843e658b721b2b6bd
F20101118_AAAPVZ djeri_n_Page_42.tif
e21399c497b346c1f52c95f721ca4061
33d511a4274e24af45260db6270a41cbd1ae1fda
F20101118_AAAPOE djeri_n_Page_46.tif
1b0e17927eaf60565cc0c551db7472f6
d6e0fa73ff9730cb34ccb154660517298763155a
21576 F20101118_AAAQHV djeri_n_Page_61.QC.jpg
16d763bd883a46027a89d6b600a4f724
7acbea8e3ec86a2e597460229cc2c20cf534ee43
F20101118_AAAQCY djeri_n_Page_31.tif
7f497983b6e5b080fbf3ac63492de75a
a3bcb50a09e05bb8a767fbbf0b15872bb3c3618c
48081 F20101118_AAAPTC djeri_n_Page_41.jp2
4c2c8c2a7f3a14262ceb123f850010d0
92e99b7e2431eb1ad5379473453e8cc22847f8fa
91289 F20101118_AAAPOF djeri_n_Page_30.jp2
70111a7e987d90438ce9bc2b4e750daa
ee1859d0d74db591ddd43c551b64c186dcb806b3
976 F20101118_AAAQHW djeri_n_Page_65thm.jpg
a262918dd4a8939ea0c8408b698e08f0
84a102c66eedc4df1c60ef3755f43a67d1b81bf6
F20101118_AAAQCZ djeri_n_Page_38.tif
127763694cbf6704d35fe49fe4d3386a
4615830ce7846557f07862117f075d432c18eefa
F20101118_AAAPTD djeri_n_Page_49.tif
e85c2ce2cb251b28258cac8320e0f71f
477611c33399200a6090fc815e1fb6d4d8e1d0ea
37434 F20101118_AAAPOG djeri_n_Page_16.QC.jpg
bfb8d2851590cafbff2237c4b53ae347
e96622955b9939042972f80c84e851c023b53b44
F20101118_AAAPYA djeri_n_Page_35.tif
b52c8409bd188b28c375eb9afc0cb0ba
6f62c3e209f800ec4251c209e93e0d5f6c2c28a0
25132 F20101118_AAAQAA djeri_n_Page_01.jpg
31e345e9ed8330548c4a0aa708f1c523
1dcd9afa4c335810cf74ff3f4ffb047919ad2d61
35086 F20101118_AAAQHX djeri_n_Page_66.QC.jpg
615ec46db594eea193fbba466891e802
c6025834e5c0af292b50be173d0d02720cfaec8b
104862 F20101118_AAAPTE djeri_n_Page_44.jp2
5f986eef6a3f0cc4ae91d9978d19d619
2a28e0fe04db4610ed1a26fa7f87cf105f11df06
7861 F20101118_AAAPOH djeri_n_Page_08thm.jpg
e0697691e108f021e57e33518ad1fb91
0f7f231da2f3595c64dd4610aa51e632981b0084
2014 F20101118_AAAPYB djeri_n_Page_63.txt
4507fb993bade39a51b753a8074062d9
bb6988a7f92401f56d136708dc4e5dc652788407
68766 F20101118_AAAQAB djeri_n_Page_07.jpg
e3fa22c7891557a7d24a58a67a54a234
cd9320b65b07cf139c766b7e561577ef7bbfe1fd
9119 F20101118_AAAQHY djeri_n_Page_72thm.jpg
81a25a0f4b426ddeb6c8623392bd1632
70f0d7567bdf14e05639d6a7f79db969e9fecddc
30951 F20101118_AAAPTF djeri_n_Page_29.QC.jpg
68224cb02490c498d4a9591d790471b6
cf7d688ca2abfb23f2d1f3b6f7e64b204f066e74
104557 F20101118_AAAPOI djeri_n_Page_11.jpg
21176af81834e7665c4d901abeeabc6f
0db15e55d1f94f44ffead6d5b56d0847994e714c
122281 F20101118_AAAPYC djeri_n_Page_17.jp2
7fbabb26c5fa53fc5f8de529cfaa62e6
6d818fa0dafa9a2701b4cff357df9948e68dc795
116151 F20101118_AAAQAC djeri_n_Page_14.jpg
c5fa9562456355b55b86e27837297d1a
955cf1a1817682e322959b03352fa5169fefe5f2
35827 F20101118_AAAQHZ djeri_n_Page_72.QC.jpg
310b5b66bda716f63fd21f45ff5d636c
f7b7eb102d27c83afeb9a8ebec674b13151a56ea
2234 F20101118_AAAQFA djeri_n_Page_21.txt
4325ec092d228664bafc9b50e4a8e968
655b0b69db727beeb3a537fa04431e77f4d75dce
117669 F20101118_AAAPTG djeri_n_Page_66.jpg
f1bb6d4b2b3c0b246f3c77a57d17deb1
2dd97e34c58c1ac4e1cfe3fef0dc8795ee00d367
1051985 F20101118_AAAPOJ djeri_n_Page_23.jp2
7f24f3be9892c3cc6eb4e20676c07769
c693ad4416ec716343fbc929aaf3d0493457c35a
36673 F20101118_AAAPYD djeri_n_Page_06.QC.jpg
90708702413fc364772e0d22af630ffc
f4f2ae203f8b52b15e48647c4007e1eeffe31ef7
114330 F20101118_AAAQAD djeri_n_Page_17.jpg
2883a89ad7f11ac6a0869d898c0be693
aa77a99ce61f6b49db2e4e00f3a58612435eb0d8
2151 F20101118_AAAQFB djeri_n_Page_23.txt
97589ba6f07329380d2a6a74951e1754
4cf613686eb00fa6417bd86072147269b4f4ad4c
1919 F20101118_AAAPTH djeri_n_Page_40.txt
277f8524c8570702b3ded757e4057eef
f25348f2e74258b6a8694c0571a3530abf67d729
2246 F20101118_AAAPYE djeri_n_Page_16.txt
6140f131a97de84b48c3fb9be7837a30
8efcb1720cbff90900912f2d815576e916ae24bc
115737 F20101118_AAAQAE djeri_n_Page_19.jpg
05f810de9543a0c9e72dee551d858299
304c36363097c5c3a1a3effbfce8a3985c89b98c
2214 F20101118_AAAQFC djeri_n_Page_24.txt
09234f94ad0bbf520af8a9c2435595ca
858875397f1c34830f6da73c2ca0429258a74c47
F20101118_AAAPTI djeri_n_Page_61.tif
59e5cd6f751f875fb8fc05529b9c589c
3e3865fb844ff6314094b3fdad9980a6a43cfd60
F20101118_AAAPOK djeri_n_Page_57.tif
3edbf9f3662e246f9b04b5aa5d2d7f38
4fc5723b6e795a45e63771e3f3f07a3cf1a64977
132331 F20101118_AAAPYF djeri_n_Page_06.jpg
4c3b6a295876d3525a2842c6e6df986e
39ef8abc8fdb9a72970cd970a1c0f8e94a4480cb
114971 F20101118_AAAQAF djeri_n_Page_21.jpg
22d0f8db539ddc0c902bc239eb32f6c4
dd4a21767bc0f07e627ba8ed569e057ea0890028
1226 F20101118_AAAQFD djeri_n_Page_27.txt
3d28f107a33b019c239d789917ffe433
fc70b6963d77fe898b8c53f5ae5335aa8c2ffb12
9189 F20101118_AAAPTJ djeri_n_Page_26thm.jpg
afe4b7eff60268947bc7f8277d0b7af6
3a4ed93a80785dffdcc27889a36f7316050b1208
1692 F20101118_AAAPOL djeri_n_Page_30.txt
6a68de7d967e5d4dcec061ae85d491e1
92d34f8bff80c7cdf7b7be7f52fe3fe418ec3745
121028 F20101118_AAAPYG djeri_n_Page_47.jp2
8c244dc7ac6e611f5746590af9d238e3
e698d6f5ac64656b67a8c372740a68c3b53d44c7
106071 F20101118_AAAQAG djeri_n_Page_22.jpg
7bd78effc74238011c7d6a9d88893880
26817618faeb40f1a11bef7dac4102cdb3981c96
1849 F20101118_AAAQFE djeri_n_Page_28.txt
c4f361253d8faaae885a8aa487cfdeec
1413f3945d9b57ce28376ddb0decb1a3b3659d25
114997 F20101118_AAAPOM djeri_n_Page_22.jp2
df9016b19e223a31afa7bd0fe1c84487
ca3c0b683670904ee25748a86a5227c8d223a55c
107553 F20101118_AAAPYH djeri_n_Page_15.jpg
4f1ac1085e979569d8f27dc1d294db52
c222af4d52dead0eaecda69cc2c52345007b3750
113064 F20101118_AAAQAH djeri_n_Page_23.jpg
2440095b79d78a3170140e2498a97717
329c77a94da3966d81a537fcb805876e75c49c0f
F20101118_AAAPTK djeri_n_Page_26.tif
d3490eaf9a4d97c3867352c84a19ba2e
6ea6327948e0f44fa952aaf998bb4e732014afe8
2226 F20101118_AAAQFF djeri_n_Page_31.txt
018f959bdf49d020040f22a6e0101938
6c5fafad55bc4e3dbab41afd7fc61bde5a0eae51
2109 F20101118_AAAPON djeri_n_Page_45.txt
5e286365ea5fb87f6af3d0d4216c7dd0
e920a70d6b16ac1526a45d08db68320ef2742bf3
719728 F20101118_AAAPYI djeri_n_Page_43.jp2
acbf45543a6c7a949c7091c3b7a3a7ed
9703564bc462a470f67e82eadca77459869887a6
114044 F20101118_AAAQAI djeri_n_Page_24.jpg
3b27673c438dc923ea79ec014c1dbe96
436dd564fcd9fa91a8693e69dc0285e912090e42
49510 F20101118_AAAPTL djeri_n_Page_57.pro
a64385275bf91c56d4aa1214096a068a
af0251e9c599d6eb4a1cff82fc5ecbf2dc9d0fe5
2210 F20101118_AAAQFG djeri_n_Page_32.txt
0f6691ab5d1376e94915006a8031e414
ae9b718455bc9e45298c9889634b5b050cb79002
F20101118_AAAPOO djeri_n_Page_28.tif
c3621ba647b68b31fe02496ac830dd13
96982e24b383f979d184545fed003fa2f2be7b94
31283 F20101118_AAAPYJ djeri_n_Page_44.QC.jpg
1b3a25b1435cec787a9d754815bbe25a
20f8ba5629a412ece3b83e48c3010c0af48faa18
115351 F20101118_AAAQAJ djeri_n_Page_25.jpg
bf64798bc2bfe904e315007ec7919ff1
f9988153f9cec21d1b703a966a60cdef09e0c365
3915 F20101118_AAAPTM djeri_n_Page_05.txt
4af5993ae9d3802ddd9f9c7097bf18d7
6733d2ec4e5ea42e5e03a24ce952d4f5d508977a
2225 F20101118_AAAQFH djeri_n_Page_36.txt
3df1fa6244793678fe9e8290ddd64bb2
efabfbfcf0e8268b6a1d66a44c817aad80eef5e9
97274 F20101118_AAAPOP djeri_n_Page_46.jpg
667718fb51604abc9c6dbe69ba67f5f6
94af51aeb9d2d55200f760e276836b929a71c4f5
F20101118_AAAPYK djeri_n_Page_50.tif
ca1494824f1b2213879b1471a679add7
003765c54061191c01ef40907431940ab27bbb45
115671 F20101118_AAAQAK djeri_n_Page_26.jpg
544168bd28bcdbcfa48d0a2131fde21f
a41a2acd2b9688e621c71ab90d1e81b322bdb441
99981 F20101118_AAAPTN djeri_n_Page_08.jpg
9c096ee11b02281883e719eebdb52ef8
4f7da7f53620ca5b002a3dd31547632582a79ec3
2202 F20101118_AAAQFI djeri_n_Page_37.txt
38c523583898c238e0da841baf1ad8e0
c1091aeef485ac2b7fa8ba46b971385d60e6b4e1
132103 F20101118_AAAPOQ djeri_n_Page_04.jpg
2a9cef6347d5f8115bfbad42609da74e
9ae5e64efbcbd9aff1378cf21fae2ec33790ac29
99329 F20101118_AAAPYL djeri_n_Page_56.jpg
dda7baf8f37d6784fa7b40c915651f5e
43b7d5f91eeea51487559ebf12ee4bcf7a0e1f53
66100 F20101118_AAAQAL djeri_n_Page_27.jpg
7e32d82f90f266d590b3a619cc28fe18
37e29e1014111934700e80bddfa30de7a2d225c3
1846 F20101118_AAAPTO djeri_n_Page_29.txt
96283a88af598430f1127b2f0d67af49
62080b5c92de2e8f99916d5fc6c1718618b6d6c4
2189 F20101118_AAAQFJ djeri_n_Page_38.txt
1f4ce3d586eda12f61441f19b869f34f
047957843d055a0858da7ea78792397d487503a7
43518 F20101118_AAAPOR djeri_n_Page_49.pro
962ff52249fa07bb7fdf27e7804bfdde
4c0eb1560175a96d5bf01ca387c72e768ac8181f
2113 F20101118_AAAPYM djeri_n_Page_54.txt
12be0f7f1fc871006304509492ca9a39
b6e6f41d7869eafa4df8ecf025613f94de06e9ff
94282 F20101118_AAAQAM djeri_n_Page_28.jpg
d839582cd82bcdd3bd260bb036b86713
ea1257eeb5ccf5ee96ebb32d364965aa9812f1b2
2193 F20101118_AAAQFK djeri_n_Page_47.txt
92d76d0bc9207c785ff0222637cfc65e
4a27b3650222bc98aae3c2a00112a31cf4ba33ca
2163 F20101118_AAAPOS djeri_n_Page_50.txt
b42e0c86db5b5af57db54df411adc0a3
52904a44b3d045944c2fe865d0b91156af93ed9e
99436 F20101118_AAAPYN djeri_n_Page_10.jpg
716d370a4880741a0b06784c5a8d688e
e9f9d8030a4908e9bfbfe3b64033d7d7870f8982
96379 F20101118_AAAQAN djeri_n_Page_29.jpg
77f57958990581b6948c5bb33d29b06d
193aec6aabd3a6c5beec7c34c7b4e9f9ceafdce1
44408 F20101118_AAAPTP djeri_n_Page_28.pro
6196f3cf49b119ac11e42a6d0b462e28
9131760b41265f41c0efbdd4e469cd5d4cd0cd86
1773 F20101118_AAAQFL djeri_n_Page_49.txt
abb2b9705c098b370d638b4a99d22102
a0a21eb1d83aeaf406a0364884d79a660b4e11c8
F20101118_AAAPOT djeri_n_Page_30.tif
d4784e5966f4b3ec8f8304686ce2350f
c8518bdda493724220393371412026d151b122ed
106191 F20101118_AAAPYO djeri_n_Page_74.jpg
755afb5521fe0b5eee32ef80af597855
38e60f3930d27412cb93b0011cb0dd486df4f0bc
105078 F20101118_AAAQAO djeri_n_Page_34.jpg
5ecf4dd4caf58122f5d12e523ded5019
57e9cc62d21f6dae7e0f715924a2524ea5ac0d35
77780 F20101118_AAAPTQ djeri_n_Page_48.jp2
36c9e07f68b269fcd5b772f2676cd22a
e98e5bc16f4752cfc51d2ae4a4826443ea925afe
2055 F20101118_AAAQFM djeri_n_Page_52.txt
0d1be4b9efa28cf69cae0a8bd4ee5e35
ed36e3199ed237af09d94430f48304ecc1d962f1
37368 F20101118_AAAPOU djeri_n_Page_47.QC.jpg
d6359c5bbcdda7d55cbc42bf6e0427e0
033d7cbb1e91a54035aa6f7f889eed426c316993
F20101118_AAAPYP djeri_n_Page_04.tif
6e9593b02817ed54f7e2f1346e824509
aa3d88c6d8cf9ecd6467649c9a0813e3fc94f16c
117493 F20101118_AAAQAP djeri_n_Page_35.jpg
42e19d8695c8c6baf490cc178d7cff35
6475c462f1626e293412dbeb6994cc882102364e
89978 F20101118_AAAPTR djeri_n_Page_58.jpg
393c0c4594eefc7651f1f75764508884
b84a8c2350af7193d1761c067fe5e38efccd5df0
2402 F20101118_AAAQFN djeri_n_Page_57.txt
cb3279ae825a02cb0232b87b648e8684
dcbe53074a27781804ce5a501b2a5312b2294fa7
F20101118_AAAPOV djeri_n_Page_07.tif
b50e30e48f9af281beeae83b49652011
91f22e81ae53d4d3a69835a9ad2ab69b4892b804
110051 F20101118_AAAPYQ djeri_n_Page_45.jpg
8ef3b2fd02751beb7786ac8cb8cc9ddf
a0980a4d2a4225616746eb3301291fe062577bfd
118401 F20101118_AAAQAQ djeri_n_Page_36.jpg
64502f1dab9a33895a27025b6899ef0b
7891eb1c01e057a79d7e59fcab5e6612e8c1ce3c
1755 F20101118_AAAPTS djeri_n_Page_43.txt
c58881ec313e60ba06dbd74966e30c14
7a62e0b1ad6d0f7540744ddda9de13e9604203ac
2876 F20101118_AAAQFO djeri_n_Page_59.txt
d28e2e816490cd5f86064f320e1955ce
f556045adbe2917a1fcbe4cbf626ec61c2128f33
38542 F20101118_AAAPOW djeri_n_Page_73.QC.jpg
54fa48b2c0325780092c1191d74e622b
3491d3abf0da804cc55658e59e26462556a0598b
2388 F20101118_AAAPYR djeri_n_Page_70.txt
ee2cf7f7d8ac542fc00a58ed6716b70c
dc3b5cf031a01e473f11d4bad1a53dffc5c1a2d1
113720 F20101118_AAAQAR djeri_n_Page_37.jpg
a2282fc122d678637236f10e4a82d825
7c6feab3f74b1fb754fb9fe0fffb685d53e9d9b6
F20101118_AAAPTT djeri_n_Page_73.tif
9621451f3223deeb51007e25daf576fd
ada3d23764f75a3714ef4913f3f0377b968f0292
2391 F20101118_AAAQFP djeri_n_Page_66.txt
132224cd109a7336fcf1ddcd5135024a
3da50da650e098f3ca5c502a024e929f22dc6a35
2145 F20101118_AAAPOX djeri_n_Page_64.txt
4919b24b2d6d566b737c734cc4428a0e
af8bb304766197dde0425fe4fea9d5e0829f2226
58956 F20101118_AAAPYS djeri_n_Page_09.jpg
22d0212ddbeb4a0865d02a0f8eb02057
892131131703731d524062b4009f41cb8783ef7c
113678 F20101118_AAAQAS djeri_n_Page_38.jpg
934d748cd2a78201915f1c69e1ab098e
0ec09aae0e252b9f4820c2478f2a805e6879bfdb
30087 F20101118_AAAPTU djeri_n_Page_74.QC.jpg
895db19a3b29f14e52ceb90b75b984ba
925dfa98136d46deac612d9582b77804207fa5fd
2548 F20101118_AAAQFQ djeri_n_Page_71.txt
fb82ca4592f5ffd792486dbfefbe2faa
5b04115eff952d41517150ada7f7c1f3b7fbe0a3
F20101118_AAAPOY djeri_n_Page_39.tif
cf2d953bd0a077fc682f8da1670f7945
25e374121b0f8dade7363643670b1d1079615b5f
F20101118_AAAPYT djeri_n_Page_36.tif
46c48641665a3e8c7a2484ec0d14f4a7
74fe984cdbc0a954961d5a8bfd3e389664db45b7
113953 F20101118_AAAQAT djeri_n_Page_47.jpg
7aeb59e567bd1ceed70ecbb584b1473a
14d9c077f40d938bcddc0b5d4c2357dd52f1cd9f
F20101118_AAAPTV djeri_n_Page_62.tif
caedd745e97f80854b370767f61df84c
4b5143102a39e2d49e0453078879e83a2ff6c553
2461 F20101118_AAAQFR djeri_n_Page_72.txt
6635cc115b4dec299d337cf96cc6896d
657af14d0618edb8bc8578f1ae07f21a50d7622e
2017 F20101118_AAAPOZ djeri_n_Page_34.txt
bfad3f68f1c93c7f3cdb15d06fd667e4
ea3cd3c342478d5b8d1995c513f8cdd7f694c9ef
90409 F20101118_AAAQAU djeri_n_Page_49.jpg
839c3cf93b9d8b7ff5747956c94b9b32
9167b7ebd569218fdf40f9ce6b418f54b5e26a37
57073 F20101118_AAAPTW djeri_n_Page_03.jpg
7ec15625232186fc228b753ad90afce7
5a5b3f09fde6ba345c7244287556c9c8e8d81585
1979 F20101118_AAAQFS djeri_n_Page_74.txt
ee583f28607276aea717ced0966eb055
29350cd58e9d1336fa24940190ae2916a8ee182b
9689 F20101118_AAAPYU djeri_n_Page_71thm.jpg
01f9fd09c03e3df6d110420c19c173a0
21a3076c5eed92729d6951d0c5107a8f978dcb8b
104354 F20101118_AAAQAV djeri_n_Page_51.jpg
63b381be7d0a5740aa8a6ca422d6c7eb
8c85898a262eaacc5ba775997dfea58df146ea81
F20101118_AAAPTX djeri_n_Page_59.tif
8aa63ed52bc3efbd463480a6896384ea
4a2958d6f8af0342e07a6b3ca3a6404c15739bdb
F20101118_AAAQFT djeri_n_Page_01thm.jpg
6b8f2d529b0a216bb042fcc6820602fb
6e35998f580e8a2bc7c358083d4d8830ad7f8c35
27387 F20101118_AAAPYV djeri_n_Page_09.pro
e5f2f4a320a75df7da694c7e6da0ab4c
4ffee6204810bd3062487109b94ef35a37d703e1
108508 F20101118_AAAQAW djeri_n_Page_53.jpg
fdd4db24066dc6ed2e36e989f6cd55e1
4f570bb7ddf2f71e469843c70e2c698fb4e5b3a0
F20101118_AAAPRA djeri_n_Page_58.tif
b5c1a066bceea13c09da8a8c3f675d8e
a80c15452598394f1c06cf60a657ff9cf735ed4e
1833 F20101118_AAAPTY djeri_n_Page_46.txt
2184342180bd0c9995102894bd48e63b
f4da5002f37cbe6623d1514b6ecb6c4e4a1b6a88
5841 F20101118_AAAQFU djeri_n_Page_05thm.jpg
4ade9ee7d2a11b9e4088538ee42de215
8e73846731755e2ac966c76a517a74362ff9bc8f
F20101118_AAAPYW djeri_n_Page_18.tif
cde4ffbd6e69eab0e7275e853e421ce8
2a8d1a25cc948060097912dd8d729ea2073cf601
108749 F20101118_AAAQAX djeri_n_Page_54.jpg
d5aa12066c514c75b538a7436f5a63f4
6c987fa2afd8d003882205e3bf5f6e6ad91da07d
F20101118_AAAPRB djeri_n_Page_20.tif
d0daaf08b6d3eb57246440efbc769a6d
0a4a9fb2b87a34a392705ab9711cd91c68f64f60
38351 F20101118_AAAPTZ djeri_n_Page_35.QC.jpg
a9eb0398b51b237188d74c66082ce771
32b4f613ce7a8ed897acc9e057c069027b9c8e7c
6255 F20101118_AAAQFV djeri_n_Page_62thm.jpg
e774c98c893800b2c24c52090cda5e66
8439c2eb18fcca00907d30e7831a1cd24073a7a1
60915 F20101118_AAAPYX djeri_n_Page_72.pro
7d71b5e1764fb455723c0ca1fef898e5
c964b46f2e20de3eedce0f51882021adf91b5332
26229 F20101118_AAAQAY djeri_n_Page_55.jpg
27c10332931d3d292dda912d3d27fa36
1f86949bac846528b1fa7b09104a067622b1fa80
8359 F20101118_AAAPRC djeri_n_Page_64thm.jpg
829f214c8a3d4d733e25a286b92bd2ef
ce4fd6bd0c374afba6169aa3a21079115f1c2728
28533 F20101118_AAAQFW djeri_n_Page_56.QC.jpg
dee474b26c5ceb855508acf6f4132487
00780bc31ad265d2965767a5cbe77e388a26f1bc
F20101118_AAAPWA djeri_n_Page_14.tif
859793d71f938edac8368a0cf78effa0
2060b7d25b2974b3120855466c5404cd5ae886ae
9317 F20101118_AAAPYY djeri_n_Page_70thm.jpg
42dd96204affdfdaf9df2b1f9294f866
8afcc049971a1ceecf9593d3f6fe344d8b72ad6a
119804 F20101118_AAAQAZ djeri_n_Page_59.jpg
229a68e37a7d7897c1e422e3ff041e57
b4fd3b007ae58ff33226f1b348e01758a77e8ae7
37238 F20101118_AAAPRD djeri_n_Page_69.QC.jpg
9f5de09b30c17c01445d4ed3455de62f
18dc5a63d31f52a0ea2281117ae0faceebc22e00
7871 F20101118_AAAQFX djeri_n_Page_29thm.jpg
855cc4f9a6e3755ab10953696d4e63d6
cdb9f9bc743fcdf90eddfee2b304d2df2ce9c1ca
F20101118_AAAPWB djeri_n_Page_75.tif
eb02a7f6d3fe4cf7ae8a75068ca2e340
edd45b9ec505ff5c7e941a4464d47312246296a5
4960 F20101118_AAAPYZ djeri_n_Page_42thm.jpg
0c685f56e28bfd562aaff3787766fca2
fa4b1530bf5a7b712c986409f2d4dc9a40cd7e14
55374 F20101118_AAAPRE djeri_n_Page_58.pro
6971b2ea69caf4f1b57d10f35f3dfaba
1557681d984dda703714bec6baf711e97a5f2195
494 F20101118_AAAQFY djeri_n_Page_02thm.jpg
a18c50729f617e4d11b8d648f74d4f95
117558eb6c0c1cd5bfc11932476135b851e4bb38
119968 F20101118_AAAPWC djeri_n_Page_50.jp2
30a9afe6f9447f29363b9032b09f5808
f6c4a163a173cc19ac8f10b646311813f7ae4bc2
8332 F20101118_AAAPRF djeri_n_Page_40thm.jpg
5b4e7e0b335a79573b791de4ea327699
aaed7a0c7b694785f8eaf3fb254fe569374dc5ae
9012 F20101118_AAAQFZ djeri_n_Page_32thm.jpg
bc251a82ec52fccaa1e08b4ed343b3ea
a1ca4e4a7186ce1e289c1f2bc455e94cac5bd607
6584 F20101118_AAAPWD djeri_n_Page_63thm.jpg
14e2b8892b9d460cd4bf88371c8531f7
e560b8ab724769bcac345fd65df5e6c15c424486
9011 F20101118_AAAPRG djeri_n_Page_39thm.jpg
b384425f80b4ed51f83bdc6ed814d51d
ca6d7e695e6556f4d2987743308ea742952322f2
F20101118_AAAQDA djeri_n_Page_40.tif
77c0c13ca7adbf64c6aa9683fa99bc27
74252a023dd931f3fae972b8f814b8eac3879d9b
9198 F20101118_AAAPWE djeri_n_Page_36thm.jpg
23db1841bdd68d5a5feeb28eeb8fe7cc
e398a2fbc29e7c0b373574fe31502ec94fa95de4
F20101118_AAAPRH djeri_n_Page_55.tif
fd11416c73ed57b9a68668f79a3358ee
96b4d2f9309d9f9511d453da3b1bad5d32e5356b
F20101118_AAAQDB djeri_n_Page_41.tif
2e356861e2a6153be1beea732c02f5ad
051e339df7bb3f302592e7de7eb26cdf62c193dd
F20101118_AAAQDC djeri_n_Page_45.tif
88433da118410b372e80d68484a43502
9a8e6b1037c8c15a781d183817bb0425512299a3
1051962 F20101118_AAAPWF djeri_n_Page_05.jp2
fc5d4ef7124862959b604cea9b34d225
6da7e47e1c23f8392d8cfa377ee1ae338f33a8dd
117809 F20101118_AAAPRI djeri_n_Page_18.jp2
76c2ee3d837c9b183dc58a8c1d03ef96
ad65c9c2e6dde07ce9979a51791dadb79ae4b374
F20101118_AAAQDD djeri_n_Page_48.tif
06842219764632c24625a6b2cf13e9fc
16ff9cdedfcf7e63ee2a2e7058c9fcfcf6197c63
121929 F20101118_AAAPRJ djeri_n_Page_16.jp2
2258d809d2b206f0cec5404708c36f58
c4532a3fba788eb1e44ddbc128e115239a91099a
F20101118_AAAPWG djeri_n_Page_27.tif
33aef82e56aa344133055279ab30d3e2
049d522114a760de355ed24b8fa56ce63759c0a7
F20101118_AAAQDE djeri_n_Page_60.tif
77e4540a0a1ce95837642fbc721e0681
04cbc32d775b67d7648f530d7c5bdbfe86736b45
33706 F20101118_AAAPRK djeri_n_Page_59.QC.jpg
233d882322a8839784c737d4fc8cddb6
562bdec5b679584bf56f65786b173767c485d656
37296 F20101118_AAAPWH djeri_n_Page_07.pro
bb1a82e86ad98725a838e67631b5d053
7f7ad7b87926f16aa92281c438ada6a1b9290733
F20101118_AAAQDF djeri_n_Page_70.tif
43fc8a166717d0ec7a6b4cd181dfac75
b93388d50539e4207dc3518a32d7392b7c64dd98
2215 F20101118_AAAPRL djeri_n_Page_25.txt
cec3cc565aaf17ccc2fb551cfa7ec83e
bf02d2609dc8981862ac209af745b8f5491f3ab7
F20101118_AAAPWI djeri_n_Page_74.tif
e45a57b3fc19ac5e295a3c0b75280a94
9bf2fa31750070e09e768178a4d48a932920f6e2
7981 F20101118_AAAQDG djeri_n_Page_01.pro
90577f2886406c23b90f163d5ec0f3b1
d77c54c7ed80c5b4634e9dffe632c9d22de78b22
F20101118_AAAPRM djeri_n_Page_66.jp2
0b23125be1c53b17068b4b0ed6ac355e
1753fa5f437525bb426511195b38a7d9e919a0d7
15262 F20101118_AAAPWJ djeri_n_Page_41.QC.jpg
1a4c13e6f2b2d45629de4d592b119680
9502022be444f189beb1c055b33577fec392f2a3
781 F20101118_AAAQDH djeri_n_Page_02.pro
64a0594c793eb6ed948f9fcee68c6b60
116f9eeb589e49b15761fea34d986123614dee1e
8096 F20101118_AAAPWK djeri_n_Page_59thm.jpg
c463cdb224d2660618435a86b289d3fc
bb023d5de5ecac2af3624d965b450bf0d10227d9
26102 F20101118_AAAQDI djeri_n_Page_03.pro
9b7c174a1275f5e8e50c779d93971152
09ced490f37b5ec4790dde21cdea5233fceaec58
41470 F20101118_AAAPRN djeri_n_Page_30.pro
2af8df21fb569fbc8cf2788df875a91a
d192166d918ca9d2b977c6ad829f42678c5a0625
84965 F20101118_AAAPWL djeri_n_Page_57.jpg
26ee5f0d93f1a476cc773f54421c8b46
3cd5ff45520fa8b1ceef39848895175603615e50
93576 F20101118_AAAQDJ djeri_n_Page_05.pro
8bca0ef42644c6884dd0854574bf6d34
36bfc2a172b64d5a4a078ca3634869fb0fb77270
3736 F20101118_AAAPRO djeri_n_Page_02.jpg
fc7153a39d5041d23b0da705b6053ef0
543e8b74b040baa2dc9a6221737a7f8018f3d0a2
2176 F20101118_AAAPWM djeri_n_Page_20.txt
8ed83cce23c55cf21e598be8f2a20ee5
8369ed620c200d2c9cdc63e6c9f94bc1e495d741
49990 F20101118_AAAQDK djeri_n_Page_11.pro
a00e1e02f87f999a7d31cf8e2507b731
67a9b476f7f5a291e90073a1804df5f2d8b60c60
45901 F20101118_AAAPRP djeri_n_Page_29.pro
cb7886f11b16c0e44d7237a0e4f2cb25
0788724d9a982f447c129fa05ad9fe213aeb05f3
9342 F20101118_AAAPWN djeri_n_Page_06thm.jpg
b8886e388bb7a215b28838aa21fe86d6
a9d09b9568fa4e73d567c83366fe343ba85e5936
56454 F20101118_AAAQDL djeri_n_Page_16.pro
0fcd347f7306a57a714647634638a45b
c8281ac7d3ad2f991fb4d4258c4d720af5c98939
28378 F20101118_AAAPRQ djeri_n_Page_55.jp2
da496cda5271e9b9665584cac657f85d
d200da2b5d21932afccc22c22759a217f60d214e
28456 F20101118_AAAPWO djeri_n_Page_04.QC.jpg
187ecf6ed5ef75c8cdf451962535bd06
89e4669bf25896f249e3d677b79ff9cb3db88ac2
55471 F20101118_AAAQDM djeri_n_Page_17.pro
91747c5577098dd9b3ff9ce65fa7e161
74a0cba0c70f41548f6985f58e4707966e439c06
35762 F20101118_AAAPRR djeri_n_Page_15.QC.jpg
dcb18a535175f1a4d1ad28f845d6ed22
230f010aade759896d1f9919f45655558eac3d99
F20101118_AAAPWP djeri_n_Page_52.tif
0a5b07de054af43c1f2de440094a715f
68e404c65e2385a70f66d1980d44a6d7cdcec96e
56654 F20101118_AAAQDN djeri_n_Page_19.pro
4a339e2d8f015afee8684eafe7375a0f
934f532b0c4ffb8de78dd71c566995a9c835b186
2141 F20101118_AAAPRS djeri_n_Page_33.txt
f1f6da06c0879861794c4b6354f753ac
79f930610a2f9ae2cf161fac5947989f9d4d8340
118812 F20101118_AAAPWQ djeri_n_Page_32.jpg
0a2aff525f25c640e39bf11bab00d986
5507fe79d444b2766938f80d4766259a517e1263
54523 F20101118_AAAQDO djeri_n_Page_20.pro
22f6803cc81a1857a234515fb7a12091
4993058d4e8b69bdd3a7e7fde0eadd15caf6384f
48649 F20101118_AAAPRT djeri_n_Page_40.pro
074eee7a1fdd5aee7a7e5ecfdb05e1ab
0250ccbf23937ad2bf61fed8bb576de454a1adc6
70836 F20101118_AAAPWR djeri_n_Page_43.jpg
f68ebacddaaf291f7a06b3c8945ad5f2
35360e96d29373a45ed669489b4f8fab80f89ffa
56119 F20101118_AAAQDP djeri_n_Page_21.pro
5690800df888c9d2f45ad0b93b2337c5
d0398cb4941a03c55fea064d204a12159f84efce
F20101118_AAAPRU djeri_n_Page_02.tif
c706112def578c6cc275876d8203ccc0
2910cc20b7941c15abde3b32ebb6d9626ba62a91
54477 F20101118_AAAQDQ djeri_n_Page_23.pro
e5ba52d19c951b0fa3db052168b78865
3fa65af1e6838746f04db356dfc08a1052cb4a81
8907 F20101118_AAAPRV djeri_n_Page_17thm.jpg
a0b3014abccd5e6c845e751b102324fc
c5ae5eb652b9ff3ee6a63bf1b5315ce7ef51a5de
2673 F20101118_AAAPWS djeri_n_Page_56.txt
37be3e6de46d9b79bbb8fcb950d239be
6424b6ab011cb1d48feeb4c85a7e0850e5c30324
56604 F20101118_AAAQDR djeri_n_Page_24.pro
83c9ad09474452107c7c98468c11c357
3e0a7a96005baa5744d2721445c9b1a00533b4e2
8932 F20101118_AAAPRW djeri_n_Page_50thm.jpg
bb51fdea19686e12c4f6215492bdb06d
b2affe4cebcc03c21b7a8143fa87d6b118721e18
9123 F20101118_AAAPWT djeri_n_Page_35thm.jpg
75f27c80f1354cc60b6ee8de0121031b
e06b7c13af7556b76ccbb39d5226536909a37f98
56442 F20101118_AAAQDS djeri_n_Page_26.pro
c098e3217ed48e58af2d99e059f0e02d
1ce3154d6346f80ca16e6fbbe878d4083b37c6ec
5447 F20101118_AAAPRX djeri_n_Page_27thm.jpg
b80650c327f267bdd53f2f17c5d7c7f9
bc1ede80fae604b2a2c42d26690d8f904de7c1e7
8775 F20101118_AAAPWU djeri_n_Page_15thm.jpg
54d9b210862c26a1755d5982b0e3c267
eb7d3a882c27a7a839a87bf1fac4954014ef6056
55918 F20101118_AAAQDT djeri_n_Page_32.pro
8c1868ce1f6ce60e12307dded671d999
f3ff029cc4b38baa81572a5539cef5031c92e2cf
50607 F20101118_AAAPRY djeri_n_Page_51.pro
7d977c4bc0e74f066d45b894c59e9a36
0ecdc14c3cf3c5a98bf15ea417adc9b51878dbd5
56902 F20101118_AAAPWV djeri_n_Page_31.pro
9e2d5a27135303dc366f9c3ec212c8d8
0562aeeee92af5dd8300b6a9a3db8cd618f6909f
1992 F20101118_AAAPPA djeri_n_Page_51.txt
5ce77bf6639aa0322112d3590e520236
53db496f14c7f5de0f7d941d551340643af437e4
54271 F20101118_AAAQDU djeri_n_Page_33.pro
c94cd7adcaa631286be3e7d2850497d0
545dbf89b763b40a670a6c68848cf5c23766fc99
116259 F20101118_AAAPRZ djeri_n_Page_54.jp2
31ce502e75207e0e1039f53ac4896d7b
5e59b700fe4fa22cdb3a9dbe98644be5838d3394
122249 F20101118_AAAPWW djeri_n_Page_13.jp2
12e2eedb2f54baf2386adc1cc51d6fdd
101964da73de16be005848fdd5108901e0f66e1a
48174 F20101118_AAAPPB djeri_n_Page_08.pro
b8eab4145b36e43da553c5dfa8e2f149
0258f092ab7abf5d6a9f2783bdb959f388b291ee
51165 F20101118_AAAQDV djeri_n_Page_34.pro
66e57d107df8fed40d398996b04c85f9
4846721f4610ba7eeb7f119eb94e8b7a939b6a30
9596 F20101118_AAAPWX djeri_n_Page_67thm.jpg
54b3355d98d448daba1ef0d170606195
c23f5902ba942e3d6ee77b886d3b27d239e14a33
F20101118_AAAPPC djeri_n_Page_44.tif
bf9a881c80730ac401ccb1cddb352749
361d9556dc7835ff262de1685254395999756748
56803 F20101118_AAAQDW djeri_n_Page_36.pro
95a9a0bec9814d50b060a8773436af94
35110c936d463367501857ff5358b981a764abe6
100095 F20101118_AAAPUA djeri_n_Page_40.jpg
b4aa0df91a00059d07a98577d7d70fd8
34450e14175fb268eb99f5e185cc80c84d1bc34e
54815 F20101118_AAAPWY djeri_n_Page_13.pro
4d4f111e34c69a45b3945bd383a74ca9
a13a3381b3b040616633258e21febcb4b20f90a8
113052 F20101118_AAAPPD djeri_n_Page_50.jpg
833ab55a558f7c950082113463d6168c
1e72d585a3f4c260e36cb378be408adb64ac19fd
56222 F20101118_AAAQDX djeri_n_Page_37.pro
055e8c64b7ea7e24c14f4b4603dbb32b
78ff3fb0776560f3b84deb1842e96b4276c3d84f
F20101118_AAAPUB djeri_n_Page_68.tif
d855a6fac2e591897ea5c3aba1bb1ad1
6f11cf9fcc5b2792414f9394b552d4705703e343
2114 F20101118_AAAPWZ djeri_n_Page_15.txt
0267c9dd7eba99b7b0525d44c3bb69a9
505710168f43a4825f5e45787e348646314cd9f4
F20101118_AAAPPE djeri_n_Page_43.tif
f490125a7bd1d0ff488fe9a8842fd660
c4485581a359562e5f930f546fdca87c6741c5c6
35825 F20101118_AAAQDY djeri_n_Page_43.pro
2ad00ee06ed1ef2e20dabff2dd5356f2
eaca86aad807bad3a79833d3291ff40eacb5087a
9111 F20101118_AAAPUC djeri_n_Page_23thm.jpg
c1f9da21708a3ca4313ab43a4508b020
950431d94345db89f37facd55f92e30ad35fc031
108503 F20101118_AAAPPF djeri_n_Page_33.jpg
598625ab7949d378169e714a68246902
febd606fb3e4400a447fed9013484057ab1918ee
46400 F20101118_AAAQDZ djeri_n_Page_46.pro
ab7cc1e31b3799ab85b3fd45127c2cce
fba8f21f6a1ce4f85d8e956dff7fb09372b3d2b3
F20101118_AAAPZA djeri_n_Page_25.tif
04f354de002641717f3fca6fef58643d
a1f395505f1733548d9db57f88893587b7a392a3
95119 F20101118_AAAQBA djeri_n_Page_63.jpg
7313f3429b1d7539c9d21e91edda7a6a
8cc04c09b6f4175acfc9b6d4fc7b863efd98d36b
9144 F20101118_AAAPUD djeri_n_Page_19thm.jpg
43a201a31c40bd6fe217a77436f6ec7d
b2b3ad51b26ed5db765448bb1dd35bed4b0c6d28
55615 F20101118_AAAPPG djeri_n_Page_38.pro
7332ddb72ad96a7f60725b9eb0904abb
7e8397c5c6d8b693ad70088488d92c068f1def8e
22666 F20101118_AAAPZB djeri_n_Page_43.QC.jpg
3c3b20c04b4e4c7de449e7a355e1283c
a7db8b44eb4fb6c277194cc7fa8622cae1174bea
131501 F20101118_AAAQBB djeri_n_Page_68.jpg
0dc259ce17559306e91b29e2931039da
e609a601dcd4c2f0402ae1afe4c1ff852bcd9001
55807 F20101118_AAAPUE djeri_n_Page_14.pro
7758a70488fe3dcbfa2e957fbb305d0b
fd17ab10dea448d8c3cecc2a4e707ed49adb181d
2216 F20101118_AAAPPH djeri_n_Page_26.txt
ce4f0d1754e2809c15bfc8a81cebebfa
095dc04e82668b22e63b4bd715315699aaa2d00d
8733 F20101118_AAAQGA djeri_n_Page_53thm.jpg
f5c13adcfbe96b0b44e4e69b22682e24
d37ad4c0822c062bbefbb2df24f66237d105c33c
124213 F20101118_AAAQBC djeri_n_Page_69.jpg
5b0d85d2f57ad81041c8cb20e659df11
f6ee4ed386c6d2dfe15afe910dc92741096d148d
F20101118_AAAPUF djeri_n_Page_11.tif
ca81c85b4f56f4dbcf6bcd386f9c75d1
c82564241b5b226626a474a6628b9fe92ea0b3fe
7618 F20101118_AAAPPI djeri_n_Page_74thm.jpg
766a1c800595715d1ad107049335c763
011c8206f8367a443ff03ad63660befcfb5efdca
F20101118_AAAPZC djeri_n_Page_56.tif
8035289dbd2ec33abc367daeadd10730
a2d100c24c3a060cd24521ea2ee81b69c8aa9199
122020 F20101118_AAAQBD djeri_n_Page_70.jpg
373c4672e414ed162ee0018f78cf23d7
4c1173dbe0052e93b080a0870f280dd0d6b0ef6e
F20101118_AAAPUG djeri_n_Page_01.tif
1c96004a0869ebffadf062e309c19f15
f1861588562e17051b0b0dc963d500041852c379
4619 F20101118_AAAPPJ djeri_n_Page_03thm.jpg
9e7e0e822f3d913ce7c8d3368ed3b183
bfa35f9c195a0f14035311ef14b18583e0d74de4
47420 F20101118_AAAPZD djeri_n_Page_44.pro
a5d8bcef1a4fc2e77c9152c218e86b59
5b065967870fe2c5c3137332384a1e274d167546
8888 F20101118_AAAQGB djeri_n_Page_21thm.jpg
82b8b6d93b6b6d88e46ea6858ad3d243
cc33b61a4a59888984d1792e4256dcdc3331d8bd
124243 F20101118_AAAQBE djeri_n_Page_72.jpg
1f514266e6cc577964f3f48d7e57de71
a1e7fbaa2268717193c9fd2b2070dafc903f72ae
58104 F20101118_AAAPUH djeri_n_Page_42.jp2
cda26f75ad4b79bd1e6b3d8a0bc5c417
512a19fb80b506635344f4a963a415e81714f09c
113568 F20101118_AAAPPK djeri_n_Page_12.jpg
86e7fef7a1461ee33c7a847edf4c50db
dce1b347c4a20bb9000ac566737feafd05084b4a
55965 F20101118_AAAPZE djeri_n_Page_25.pro
8dce6c2da6c7fbd7834fb09d8b47b5d1
e2ada060e499d7c3bef050c5532283cf2ef51517
37204 F20101118_AAAQGC djeri_n_Page_13.QC.jpg
276570187f28b676fed0bae140d4d814
82cf9482e59ee4c23c3067a52f28c3c10fd3133e
134519 F20101118_AAAQBF djeri_n_Page_73.jpg
de868b0d14f0cbe01ae4be10ff765089
5a8cf4daac15563dc7afdd8c7baad8a7698ab78c
F20101118_AAAPUI djeri_n_Page_51.tif
420d9f755fcb6dc92ab62ea13e4a693c
25125faf1f077a0926320739a4daf7bc4f927772
120645 F20101118_AAAPZF djeri_n_Page_12.jp2
bc257a27ad5319eefb2144295d66ec0d
96da9369fefbd6540c2012ebc094e867753e9e8d
37313 F20101118_AAAQGD djeri_n_Page_37.QC.jpg
1dc9ddc0a856922e0f1b80506a821e22
48472bc13f7b0e90ca0eb9cc7606a9f8c002c8c0
33639 F20101118_AAAQBG djeri_n_Page_75.jpg
a0dd23c3cf6b01f0f3daeab91483ede9
61988eaa4525ba293d1387b4572fe3155d5314f1
11291 F20101118_AAAPUJ djeri_n_Page_55.pro
c73f447bf25921dc344ffdb5ac97ae7a
8239f84bd32207c8826b8f4811802de3c06bd1a3
21210 F20101118_AAAPPL djeri_n_Page_27.QC.jpg
715fa0cebd165afeb1e3b1acc8e1377b
707bd348a9eb416ba3df001791e33d260dc8087a
F20101118_AAAPZG djeri_n_Page_66.tif
a48eef049c88f2c5e7f5b2bab02c0609
590bdeb2c0a6ba7b6fade774dad34becc8ec4fa3
31084 F20101118_AAAQGE djeri_n_Page_08.QC.jpg
8073daedf61fa05346a3d36a29b93f86
547ccf4b491f64f561de2680738f3d9eca4b8368
24602 F20101118_AAAQBH djeri_n_Page_01.jp2
e73e02366128de5327ef02ee4844d5cd
beb898e498a8643cde94c65f661beb305f94cedf
F20101118_AAAPUK djeri_n_Page_71.tif
1782b3fbfab30346f4049a23ce8de299
639a8d2df754e5776070f59e6e465754ca5ece99
86 F20101118_AAAPPM djeri_n_Page_02.txt
a64a9658afa3f1901fb64ef1a21d4806
0f9d8df2ad2e1d1a03e8325f5bcff4a0afa8c1f9
450 F20101118_AAAPZH djeri_n_Page_55.txt
1ae3a4fba36a4980b09980636714d10b
ff330e00d79f52c439bcd75aa0367c575a500bba
38523 F20101118_AAAQGF djeri_n_Page_67.QC.jpg
f1a300e4974a8cfbba909eaf61e41302
c2395d2cd9ed2bf08d2e7718fd489f520147d378
60394 F20101118_AAAQBI djeri_n_Page_03.jp2
5bd728a7260509088428119acee070e7
922ced9a7df5199138fbf95ebe0bb87514b23116
36834 F20101118_AAAPUL djeri_n_Page_38.QC.jpg
4cc2e1c90692f741d09f6808ea565e9a
1e0e2d37b997e85ba87adeede55361c98bbcd479
F20101118_AAAPPN djeri_n_Page_72.tif
efdd1ff2ec12faacd9c21f3aab7218c0
a3b505702f6ffde217cfbe8737814ab4e1e1b61f
109461 F20101118_AAAPZI djeri_n_Page_64.jpg
6bcae148a4f82a4fafb1901f05f4c9cc
56adb8c32145c22fe76365e27ed3571aed8cbbad
36747 F20101118_AAAQGG djeri_n_Page_52.QC.jpg
4631d7c2237a9818b987e38f0c0a45ce
c1798c2147fc93e0497087ad9724609efc0af9f9
37615 F20101118_AAAPUM djeri_n_Page_39.QC.jpg
6abfa0e05c76a5a2edb28665abffb6c5
3cee25bca86db26bd6e4cc95906b02afd40899e7
7906 F20101118_AAAPPO djeri_n_Page_46thm.jpg
287bc7a35c8383b45e33267e156fc0a8
46e029b09d5c55d5c1dd2aa4000e0cc80799a74d
54935 F20101118_AAAPZJ djeri_n_Page_12.pro
fd48eb7b3b4419a42e9d0f7472723447
31f37345b6849a195c84c9ce9fb75025cc53e113
F20101118_AAAQBJ djeri_n_Page_04.jp2
648aa80f8b317494fdab063401ae27a4
13a990e48bafaa5c26fe2cad904f7ef38f2a1d73
9187 F20101118_AAAQGH djeri_n_Page_37thm.jpg
de1cf4ff1a81008f85368985ac7029a7
df50be5b69350b74c15fe194b40af2a782e47483
73659 F20101118_AAAPUN djeri_n_Page_48.jpg
f946ff705859507580f52ddb77b333fe
f70fb4d31abe20afe5ad1f4c8385e6ca27468c43
30519 F20101118_AAAPPP djeri_n_Page_27.pro
8de898be1dff3da4f7707e775b35d938
99e7256a0476bdebf02de69f52055f7880a40b45
8249 F20101118_AAAPZK djeri_n_Page_44thm.jpg
72a68d0f28c6c90551e694cda152996f
4fafa12f1b3e5142444eb6f35e0a19eb06caae8a
106570 F20101118_AAAQBK djeri_n_Page_08.jp2
40b24dc33d1dcd01c09c757348a08609
42b94ba28165f59f58288de331a5dc75ef9e2588
36081 F20101118_AAAQGI djeri_n_Page_18.QC.jpg
8ab814fc159aeaa2af9580da7ea9909c
8ef23d0a0497d15766cf07390d375c56bc8d0173
114102 F20101118_AAAPUO djeri_n_Page_13.jpg
47ecc1b11413113fdd25313e4875d513
bd9b59d7e7a8527750f7921ffb8b04add6970ed8
113249 F20101118_AAAPPQ djeri_n_Page_16.jpg
fc6b05da56425d4c8a857b7764893d64
70e745a6af1508df1e1c78ffa9179cee53b918a4
122 F20101118_AAAPZL djeri_n_Page_65.txt
ccddffa37b17b8f29f3956525696cf02
3617f5d9218c206cd13e62865339ebfbf289537c
121705 F20101118_AAAQBL djeri_n_Page_19.jp2
0e7b3ab9a2985918b0febf9cb6efa124
21bb2b1cc4765be7f2061290196ee7ca82cc6597
37356 F20101118_AAAQGJ djeri_n_Page_68.QC.jpg
74a3ab356dbd92bb3acf110b2701465b
f29baa3b49498b2643aa7e4c8bc153913a7dcb77
33628 F20101118_AAAPUP djeri_n_Page_40.QC.jpg
476e1ee4ccd18718f4f725ee8c2eb3f2
e44d93fad88c3086fa1aa05b22cb283b673a5dcc
26049 F20101118_AAAPPR djeri_n_Page_57.QC.jpg
c6c031524dd8729e5f676462f4e0497c
da67b13482680d3c25935eb1033f1fbf393d7738
117589 F20101118_AAAPZM djeri_n_Page_31.jpg
e8320ecdbc0bbac9b0176d06e2f0d4e1
b8b045f0eeb5e29d8a619215209c8cfe6ade0693
121230 F20101118_AAAQBM djeri_n_Page_21.jp2
edaac58c8bb5e3a3a695f3a710935f5a
2ded7a59955db29c8046a9498bd39fbe0043730b
27067 F20101118_AAAQGK djeri_n_Page_63.QC.jpg
48ffef53c3e8c1a7425bf599e0fe3de4
9ae18ac08a91ee88edc999c10e3cf86b633ab394
36448 F20101118_AAAPPS djeri_n_Page_33.QC.jpg
41e0f305c043df1d888a2c49eef53aea
e55c3f581638395e68bf4f5d341c2a342fd0203b
46956 F20101118_AAAPZN djeri_n_Page_63.pro
f211d2efce67ee0c6e819146c74d2415
695f66a24bc75248d82e7088bf258916a1d58178
121145 F20101118_AAAQBN djeri_n_Page_24.jp2
779ea688332449fd3a12ad4e8d242684
574a43d6af586bf45292eaaac07e38d2e3b3d1ef
26945 F20101118_AAAQGL djeri_n_Page_58.QC.jpg
6a36eabad7bb37bb961396c1a1022989
4b6e28feea06b9bae0124817c8d563e05fa12533
F20101118_AAAPUQ djeri_n_Page_23.tif
6f4ff421e41a19fcbd9d3a1e7a15c0ac
3e26f10a14ad9cf79cf53f9693d09e1d40d174e3
1964 F20101118_AAAPPT djeri_n_Page_10.txt
de4144d78688f2bcdce463071c53cf7d
a964c630a8569489ec6ad60bc7d932e05174bd2b
7949 F20101118_AAAPZO djeri_n_Page_30thm.jpg
9a968931a068610570e4262eaf6537c4
ec50a4238b4cf84c322b6b68050400c52a2c6758
124657 F20101118_AAAQBO djeri_n_Page_26.jp2
7e4655c24c70d3544e17aee666a665fa
38d21411ad1c0b34ed9948f82695ef90e64352d3
8217 F20101118_AAAQGM djeri_n_Page_10thm.jpg
a0c4677eee892258e12844b498bcd699
8613e9746c048dd8337dc47cda8b0e95c8fc305c
105571 F20101118_AAAPUR djeri_n_Page_60.jpg
4d69ed2db668b31242ce4fdf4a7e1553
37ce5c5f39476ba5035d92706022125164468fab
2990 F20101118_AAAPPU djeri_n_Page_58.txt
e73e2d4fb6df20ff065f1ced5b18f701
3724fd449cceb0b2a2177306f9c871506522dbf6
72726 F20101118_AAAPZP djeri_n_Page_61.jpg
d181f9c6b0e9173087faf2eab220cf44
a06f208336a5762e7d29f0d9e6a5d72e4f5b398f
69734 F20101118_AAAQBP djeri_n_Page_27.jp2
faf941e3434ba9f7ef5e4a4ac8fdcc0f
d22473bf98000ecc91165ca4c7e5239cbd09bee9
8625 F20101118_AAAQGN djeri_n_Page_55.QC.jpg
e90fcfb6af7ec5c5a445c335bc16f552
ae130efcd552f1b66acc19b4e80dda4a3c484e68
F20101118_AAAPUS djeri_n_Page_03.txt
865d9cc206ada9f3c4413cc307f24be3
0aafa62a319eb182a949ec59e85b1d68045c2c49
8900 F20101118_AAAPPV djeri_n_Page_25thm.jpg
08de210bb9a1b3e8ed6e91d898a949c8
56f73c43876307e90a526adb622126026f2986c8
38334 F20101118_AAAPZQ djeri_n_Page_32.QC.jpg
30fff83a27b0e1da9e6c3f7730bc756a
8076758dcb9be94ac4a21dc6c895e3d8bb46a294
99505 F20101118_AAAQBQ djeri_n_Page_28.jp2
3722ce482a395e84b1340c09437474cb
11c310af7c1bd18935331dcd0ea1d31a419b948f
9003 F20101118_AAAQGO djeri_n_Page_14thm.jpg
9fba4b6ad279a88b791115575c3e1b8d
15c37474097667aa3e2d0e92143d1b2675c32ee9
F20101118_AAAPUT djeri_n_Page_62.txt
56985eaf6af2f2bf8e530f6efa9b2d44
06609245b8ee80a32690f1e53c4e36df72d75ee0
7216 F20101118_AAAPPW djeri_n_Page_04thm.jpg
8f1efe5b11c0724fb583894efeee80be
46c0b82823fc851d9595a20dc61cb799ab639a28
F20101118_AAAPZR djeri_n_Page_53.tif
6d59bcf6daef0647207f167a322354d3
8f2a9f3dc7fccbaa829ccc50bb641ff8bbfc5ac9
99652 F20101118_AAAQBR djeri_n_Page_29.jp2
1108a26292aba1a406e67de0ca84392f
334a7de6c5025c0bbf0bb2bbebe94dbb6092f2f3
7340 F20101118_AAAQGP djeri_n_Page_60thm.jpg
366cf6e5f2dd6e6dfd060b38b3f21cde
f827b0698e72a94630473bf2863dd0e7b80a5ccb
98952 F20101118_AAAPUU djeri_n_Page_44.jpg
519e4b098110eaa0029fc281f117dfc9
fd12a95a1e1a1c8cab10e68f9eb37bb85b2f325a
38910 F20101118_AAAPPX djeri_n_Page_31.QC.jpg
5fd624953d32a4e6bd76507662f75b1d
eca4dbbfea047d16ec84d9e5a647e872910a629d
2162 F20101118_AAAPZS djeri_n_Page_39.txt
564cb44c1a7c7d3254911f87fc7c1b2b
1d40a7654453a4f144cc8fb02649c26b052d48f1
123929 F20101118_AAAQBS djeri_n_Page_31.jp2
2d1ac19e5c3f5c2414dc5e8fe7a1ceb4
84d0b573d86d63777c2fba3b46b3e364bd340253
F20101118_AAAQGQ djeri_n_Page_16thm.jpg
52440e30c49f469c2357decaa1e9f1ed
6db4e8558f068cbd01f066b499905cb70d1fef3f
1579 F20101118_AAAPUV djeri_n_Page_42.txt
a74fe020600765f02eb4bb3b14286641
08fb53232c9bf85de06ae0bd11e5642f320f89a4
9335 F20101118_AAAPPY djeri_n_Page_69thm.jpg
a1d9766640b3aff3f3a738fd6afe3bdd
97af14fb38a1601946166e55b3c08c5bf06cb237
24125 F20101118_AAAPZT djeri_n_Page_48.QC.jpg
08e2b1a29bef23475c70404b555a616c
20374873f34d6a2fc724f3066df1fda8d9c69bde
122326 F20101118_AAAQBT djeri_n_Page_32.jp2
ea3eed2e9754bed5b7dac56d53beea32
fc93b66eb5970e57773a4c2e6f71798b78b3eb98
38222 F20101118_AAAQGR djeri_n_Page_71.QC.jpg
3bfc38cabf6201d7ba33bf9286d4aa23
5e1a82322bddde998d2fbcbd37cc9fc61d0bec23
53763 F20101118_AAAPUW djeri_n_Page_45.pro
261fb59dc30109ead9a61fff92d8d18d
0fc18170e3f4a8f22f458fe36e671b34b2fcf5d8
8253 F20101118_AAAPPZ djeri_n_Page_51thm.jpg
4c13cbfa3538a72b03b11885dc87429d
cba0ca553b8f2f8341cb6b45a8476cab91a98411
38783 F20101118_AAAPZU djeri_n_Page_36.QC.jpg
d1a27fb421eb78ec7b6e4feaef0a8caa
5f49dc492fac20a1d9bc5b295fc66b60840291cb
117044 F20101118_AAAQBU djeri_n_Page_33.jp2
baf0d60e07c84f0765987aec9d086048
7e7150f7159cec1db37e49008deb86c8dadbf985
1121 F20101118_AAAQGS djeri_n_Page_02.QC.jpg
dd7dd2d0359424facfbde2dc7289987f
861565ca1ec610f04b8d42a85d3bb41f2bda1504
96676 F20101118_AAAPUX djeri_n_Page_49.jp2
9e746c592e33491a01cec13b67996240
cae74c4feaabdfcd0193cf0d8d2270dbf71af4ac
1051932 F20101118_AAAQBV djeri_n_Page_35.jp2
fa3d5a461b080105b178b2b0f9fcece1
49cf0c65e81501e851c24b0cb03ab10874a0476e
9857 F20101118_AAAQGT djeri_n_Page_68thm.jpg
d4d741f0f4b4eccb5d9ac515c51d6bba
96b0fc183f0f9a78366b625a8f02619e03a7ab68
31932 F20101118_AAAPUY djeri_n_Page_10.QC.jpg
4d4090ea5b8bcf205c6a22eb5965178f
e13f13919afeb092ca653e030fdfa0d1d4788f96
1051959 F20101118_AAAPZV djeri_n_Page_07.jp2
f553d905d96987055ac8b72d918445db
b6c452d07f9f483ea2a683eb2c092ec7a69e8c4e
119689 F20101118_AAAQBW djeri_n_Page_37.jp2
4eafb15dd47a74d2d37f5f4bc8ef6a58
71ebfcafa562f97809e010fab1297d4de839cfd4
133105 F20101118_AAAPSA djeri_n_Page_67.jpg
88ac8db3dbb957bf2ff857560dd823cf
b6de62fe2a432c28e524858aae0261bbbc26c6c2
18105 F20101118_AAAQGU djeri_n_Page_03.QC.jpg
8f6e4fb452cba0d1af455f9dca87b118
3e5874773be90d39a166619f3c0bb3d63d946df0
56734 F20101118_AAAPUZ djeri_n_Page_35.pro
c87fa131d6edb0e98c5f33c9b7670e04
082612e8fd5851abab6c5cb8e91d22c71b88be2e
2261 F20101118_AAAPZW djeri_n_Page_19.txt
b54d186b1316c69a1a5c4b0251aa838c
20276afb2ea06ddcfd04ad69ab0c7b696187e45e
118179 F20101118_AAAQBX djeri_n_Page_39.jp2
b6c1386b85419aeb1c440a5fa17b1edc
6fe61b033e6685820475a99238b01eaf67850ff0
F20101118_AAAPSB djeri_n_Page_67.tif
0a0bef649965763624e5f0f10e3f5430
6a202a39592102bd8dea3c695dd132f354599400
37412 F20101118_AAAQGV djeri_n_Page_19.QC.jpg
d6d93c5c8081e3e131763e82d3e2316b
855f65ca913c06ba60a42b57b5a9b5541d6ec01e
87880 F20101118_AAAPZX UFE0021469_00001.mets
acbae23168cafce220e59378cce8be7e
4bec3bedf0d099f92d4272a3ed3bb0597b787ae2
108913 F20101118_AAAQBY djeri_n_Page_40.jp2
f35db9385d9ebd270550d999d2e99757
cd3df52ffbd3b4873f98de30b29c65bbfd527728
306947 F20101118_AAAPSC djeri_n.pdf
ba62fab424769c61e699389dc57bb0da
a6d47106da1d6e0c666f3d2f42821f6f93a99bb5
38179 F20101118_AAAQGW djeri_n_Page_25.QC.jpg
37fb826842084c26ee2b974f0c389c08
02e70cac1b96296052cd5cb24b083732d49463d6
F20101118_AAAPXA djeri_n_Page_34.tif
a3f6e00b734cafd7bd969fe5b79e6d3f
a6fb5a685ff52bf5bb4772d9b1d84652597891ff
116726 F20101118_AAAQBZ djeri_n_Page_45.jp2
14947c78cfa9e058f3717a0f7b692b18
d51e4846b699ea15b8285dcd12e7de7c28298b7f
36055 F20101118_AAAPSD djeri_n_Page_45.QC.jpg
e4014b871a968302e8d83102cf09571e
3555740593df3aa2f1792c65dbf1d50f67842248
36967 F20101118_AAAQGX djeri_n_Page_50.QC.jpg
eeaf6d28a29533731dd032e7892ac4ad
0f2ba220e181a00ec591316a3b45ec744b8d156f
1948 F20101118_AAAPXB djeri_n_Page_44.txt
2f9674fc3169a23f3c286fae30a82472
d145ccf716c615ad71baaff453fab31a6e80c7eb
73650 F20101118_AAAPSE djeri_n_Page_61.jp2
361fdef59e9cc80b61d8742cad1aeec1
164d0383293f9ff18ce848f1ac695febf6c70f0b
30599 F20101118_AAAQGY djeri_n_Page_28.QC.jpg
49b3ae49f3104d2caaaa9cff8227fc9d
21bb2e8c634f53d4213e1fed4a804f81effd326e
2524 F20101118_AAAPXC djeri_n_Page_68.txt
7ca8d9991022bc1cf8d78007269d3bea
4c5224904de60a0108805755240d85e54d259a44
3228 F20101118_AAAPSF djeri_n_Page_65.QC.jpg
c4df391f5b44a6f53d7c376da81bd6d4
f65d61a8ffd8d38979676805dd80e6018982976f
33562 F20101118_AAAQGZ djeri_n_Page_34.QC.jpg
d3c4b5d7d108e6167285260d6a7c0b2e
2bdab986082c8e978f5a9c8357a9966bd85ad5c5
F20101118_AAAQEA djeri_n_Page_47.pro
7af039fcbafee6a01c56edf3dfe088bb
3f7a12f49d5ead317fc3a2dc44213a65bf4d0dd5
101144 F20101118_AAAPXD djeri_n_Page_46.jp2
f4bf5d2bc6a06186e66236fe379c8280
d79c24995e48a921d7ed46a9d162f3afff217437
8284 F20101118_AAAPSG djeri_n_Page_11thm.jpg
53f35db604b1b5fb5e6b727f65b2f42f
5593430016588b46a453763a608ac5fd3e696078
35544 F20101118_AAAQEB djeri_n_Page_48.pro
1b6f5014d70eb2962a73680124a9ccde
7125cc665994c46ab45a80c137e5ed0a17efa8ad
1413 F20101118_AAAPXE djeri_n_Page_48.txt
b1aa4ad02944f54c41f7a838989f996d
2e9dc7d76e8db2c3779e5bddad35e270308b33fa
2727 F20101118_AAAPSH djeri_n_Page_75thm.jpg
0036aaef1a32e21725206eba1c2e9d7a
9a527ea96ec35b3a8a3620ceb7074ee0d4a579d3
55208 F20101118_AAAQEC djeri_n_Page_50.pro
2ef951629b6e839997dc19b8b5f664cb
6c1960c1078668af0843e837f496e5c7967cb1d3
480 F20101118_AAAPXF djeri_n_Page_01.txt
8455e0e897281442bd6cd49582c396ae
81916ecafbf4707a6bd6ce6ffee0a4ebc40cbca5
5266 F20101118_AAAPSI djeri_n_Page_61thm.jpg
542fd5d3d0be5927994188b23dfab1b5
d3ea6eae882e357adcc58d62f4b3471a449e0876
53096 F20101118_AAAQED djeri_n_Page_53.pro
59667659cb97dee17d988ec1008f6625
1ff0d8fb7496fec20c0c4ee50876673738a7fdc1
F20101118_AAAPXG djeri_n_Page_06.jp2
b00feef5538b7769a946e9087a99c080
64ad64621ef6d2e4f324a76339924835386f05bd
821 F20101118_AAAPSJ djeri_n_Page_41.txt
d495ec22f2f4bafa62e8987397fcf017
5b437caa4abed876780b9632359ce9e3d1c00bec
53858 F20101118_AAAQEE djeri_n_Page_54.pro
b5422b035bbc7ed6b806cfcdef9413aa
d5eda85aa5b10c6a7c856cf88567b1d939865ef3
8782 F20101118_AAAPXH djeri_n_Page_52thm.jpg
fb41db8bd4f6483bdd8aaa5e30e86012
d02ae9d2011d9f08410934a7ad9430bc661c3f9f
120102 F20101118_AAAPSK djeri_n_Page_38.jp2
c59eb0190b5296fce83dd50a5851946a
de1e151d94afeaa7b7b0d63b4f209fa200f86fd8
55540 F20101118_AAAQEF djeri_n_Page_56.pro
cf3da8fc9418ff0d6811de2a0c23312a
ea7a3c049d35bef1947a15e0034392ec2b7f62c3
110805 F20101118_AAAPXI djeri_n_Page_60.jp2
84a5b8e62741ae8bf5c23e218dd5e5cd
ea0898725548334d86ecfbeb2813a4f2226d2fbd
120946 F20101118_AAAPSL djeri_n_Page_25.jp2
95592c04d2e1983ebffb2c2349d7c1cc
e2a2766fc256290466cbede21f89c6cc0ca7efe2