are imperative, It is especially important t o separate toughness caused by

Transcription

1 S Y L V A COVER Because tenderness is such an important component of the eating s a t i s f a c t i o n of meat, a reliable method of detecting it i s greatly needed Such a method ought t o be s u i t a b l e f o r detecting tenderness o r toughness i n the steak before it is cooked, i n t h e wholesale cut, in the carcass, and i n t h e l i v e animal U n t i l t h e chemical and physical causes of tenderness o r toughness are understood completely, our chances of detecting or controlling it adequately seem remote Therefore, it 5s important t o begin systemetic e f f o r t s t o t a b u l a t e t h e various kinds and degrees of tenderness impressions observed under standardized conditions f t h i s is done w e l l, then perhaps we may be able t o a s s o c i a t e these observations with pertinent chemical o r physical changes o r with differences in management o r breeding n the past, members of a judging panel have been asked t o record only one score f o r tenderness of beef When such scoring is done on only one cut cooked by only one standardized method, scoring f o r tenderness is rela t i v e l y simple But when judges are presented with meat f r o m d i f f e r e n t cuts cooked i n several d i f f e r e n t ways, they must relate a v a r i e t y of sensations t o tenderness Then, scoring may be exceedingly complex and the scores d i f f i c u l t t o i n t e r p r e t A f e w i l l u s t r a t i o n s may make this point clear Judges' scores may be influenced by their softness Swallowf o r tenderness of rare steing these s o f t juicy morsels m a y take place before t h e tenderness of e i t h e r t h e muscle f i b e r s o r the connective t i s s u e has been assessed But coarse connective t i s s u e w i l l be very evident i n s o f t juicy morsels f r o m rare bottom round steaks i f they a r e chewed thoroughly n very well-done braised steaks the meat may seem hard at first, but i n bottom round it m a y break up readily a f t e r a few chews n t h i s case the muscle fibers may cnunble easily i n t o t i n y fragments and l i t t l e o r no connective tissue may be f e l t With braised loin steaks, however, the meat may be s t r i n g y because l i t t l e connective t i s s u e i s present and the muscle fibers are only s l i g h t l y friable Such differences i n tenderness c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e d i f f i c u l t f o r a judge t o report i n a single score f o r tenderness Yet i f chemical causes of tenderness o r toughness are t o be investigated, precise descriptions of tendermess changes during cooking are imperative, t is especially important t o separate toughness caused by connective t i s s u e f r o m that caused by muscle fibers Breaking tenderness down i n t o a component from muscle fibers and one from connective t i s s u e was attempted by Lehrr~m (2) as long ago as 1907 Various mechanical devices f o r rpeasuring tenderness objectively have been constructed Mr Schultz did a very good job of l i s t i n g and describing them f o r your meeting last year (3) But no one of these devices measures all aspects of tenderness t seemed possible that i n t e l l i g e n t personnel might be t r a i n e d t o discrimlnate among the d i f f e r e n t tenderness sensations and t o give information which it is not yet possible t o obtain from mechanical devices The descript i o n of two such attempts i s presented i n t h i s paper

2 218 F i r s t attempt Separation of tenderness components was attempted first with the 1955 Bluebonnet steers, using separate scores f o r muscle fibers and f o r connective t i s s u e (1) Rat i n t h a t study a connective t i s s u e score was reported only when obvious connective t i s s u e was i d e n t i f i e d by s i g h t o r detected during mastication Thus, not a l l samples received a score f o r connective tissue A score f o r muscle fibers was obtaided f o r a l l saraples t included not only the tenderness of the xuscle fibers but also t h e tenderness of any connective t i s s u e which seemed inseparable from,them The data collected that year included eteake from longissimus d o r s i in l o i n and biceps femoris in bottom round Both muscles were cooked by b r o i l i n g t o i n t e r n a l temperatures of 61OC (rare) and 80 C (well-done) and by braising t o internal temperatures of 85OC (medium) and of 100 C plus holding there f o r 25 minutes Thus, there was an opportunity f o r wide differences i n tenderness The res u l t s of these tests are shown i n Table 1 The data on connective t i s s u e suggest that differences were detected Because 52 pieces of meat from each method of cooking had been presented t o each of f o u r judges, there were 208 opportunities t o report connective t i s s u e For longissimus d o r s i there were fewer than 20 such reports within any of t h e 4 conditions of cooking; while f o r biceps femoris there were more than 180 (Table 1) Thus, in only an occasional l o i n steak did an occasional judge f i n d i d e n t i f i a b l e connective t i s s u e and even then it WBS r e l a t i v e l y tender n bottom round steaks however, most judges found i d e n t i f i a b l e connective t i s s u e i n moat of the steaks and it was tougher than t h a t found i n t h e l o i n The d i f f e r e n t conditions of cooking did not seem t o a f f e c t greatly e i t h e r t h e tenderness of the connective t i s s u e o r the frequency of reporbing, n except when the steaks were braised very well-done (loo C + 25 minutes) that case, the connective t i s s u e i n both c u t s seemed t o be somewhat more tender and t h e number of report8 were somewhat fewer than with t h e o t h e r three conditions of cooking Braising very well-done employed those cooking conditions usually considered favorable f o r changing collagen i n t o g e l a t i n and thus tenderizing the connective t i s s u e b Atenderness score f o r "muscle fibers' was obtained on a l l samples n both cuts, the fibers were s i g n i f i c a n t l y more tender b r o i l e d r a r e than w e l l done When longissimus was braised t o the two i n t e r n a l temperatures no sign i f i c a n t difference was observed, but biceps femoris was s i g n i f i c a n t l y more tender braised very well-done than t o 85'C Juiciness scores were highest when the c u t s were broiled t o the lower i n t e r n a l temperature and were lowest when t h e c u t s were braised t o the higher i n t e r n a l temperature The shear f o r c e values indicated that l o i n steaks were most tender when b r o i l e d rare, but that bottom round steaks w e r e most tender when braised very well-done tenderness and eteaks Tenderness connective The judges Second attempt A second attempt at measuring various aspects of was made with the 1956 Bluebonnet s t e e r s There were 55 steers from l o i n and bottom round were cooked in t h e 8ways as betore was divided i n t o scores f o r softness, f r i a b i l i t y and tendernebs of t i e s u e The score card used in t h a t study i s shown i n Table 2 were given a preliminary t r a i n i n g period They were t o l d t h a t

3 219 sof'tness should be rated according t o the sensations from tongue and cheek and by the ease with which the teeth sink i n t o the meat a t the first bite F r i a b i l i t y should be determined on how easily crumbling of the muscle f i b e r s takes place Tenderness of connective t i s s u e should be judged i n three ways: none is f e l t ; some i s felt o r heard during chewing, but a l l of it disappears during chewing; some connective tissue is left i n the mouth even &er thorough chewing and must be e i t h e r gulped o r discarded This latter type of connective t i s s u e is likely t o be c a l l e d rrgristle" by homemakers TAES, Department of &me Economies Table 1 Juiciness and Tenderness Data f o r 1955 Steers, averages of two steaks from each of 26 animals Methods of cooking Broiled Cuts Loin Final cookiq temp 61OC 87 80% (c 1 BR 61 C min 85OC 1oooc (e 1 + tissueb * mm HHc ns (194) * ww)( 53 w * n WH M-H (16) (14) 22 (208) (16) (9) 27 (187) 49 (181) These scores include also any connective t i s s u e which seemed indistinguishable from t h e muscle fibers (b) Total number of possible judgments was 208 average is based i s given in parentheses (c) f ibersa (a) Tenderness scores Obvious mscle connective 72 6O OoC (c) Braised &iciness scores Shear force values Number of scores on which n8, indicate significance above 596 l e v e l, and at Oel$ l e v e l respectively, detenained f r o m analyses of variance Tbe broiled steaks of both cuts, when rare, were scored very juicy, s o f t, and moderately friable, but when well-done they were scored medium i n juiciness, medium in softness and friable Thus, as doneness increased these broiled steaks became l e s s juicy and less soft but more friable The

4 220 connective t i s s u e i n the l o i n was so tender that there was l i t t l e o r no mom f o r improvement with doneness, but i n bottom round, t h e rare broiled steaks had considerable f i n n connective t i s s u e which tendered s i g n i f i c a n t l y as doneness increased Shear force values increased with increased doneness i n broiled loin steaks-the meat got tougherbut broiled bottom round steaks showed no s i g n l f i c s n t change with doneness T-, Table Adjectives Used i n Scoring Meat and Associated Weighting (1956 data) Adjective used i n scoring Weighting of adjective8 9 Department o f Home Economics Ju i c ines s Softness Extremely juicy Extrrtmely soft Very j u i c y Very soft Tenderness of residual connective t i s s u e Friability EKtrernely friable Very friable NO CeTm felt Tiny mte O f Soft CT Neither juicy creased Too dry t o swallow Moderately friable 1 reef hard Very s l i g h t l y friable Not f r i a b l e Small amt of firm CT - Slightly friable Hard Dry Neither hard nor soft Medium amt, of f i r m CT Large amt of hard CT Residue very hard The braised steaks of both cuts became less juicy as doneness inn the loin steaks, which were braised, doneness did not seem t o

5 221 affect scores f o r softness, f r i a b i l i t y, and tenderness of connective t i s s u e, but in bottom round steaks the ones which were braised longer were s o f t e r, more friable and t h e connective tissue was mre tender Shear force values of braised s t e m increased with doneness in loin (the meat got tougher) but decreased wlth doneness i n bottom muna (the meat eot more tender) Thus far our research has confirmed some of the old idem about connective t i s s u e : it is present in larger maants and is tougher i n &$*om round than in loin; and, where it was tough and was present in considerable mount, ts tenderness increased markedlywith increases in nternal steak temperature Rat, we do aot understand the difference in the chemical make up of the connective tissue i n loin and bottom round Does the heavy tough qantitaconnective tissue of bottom round d i f f e r q u a l i t a t i v e l y as ~ 3 3 as t l v e l y f r o m t h a t i n loin? Are there mre e l a e t l c fibers i n one cut than i n t h e other? Does one cut have denser collagen than the other? Good correlat i o n of judge's score for connective t i s s u e wlth a chemical constitutent of connective t i s s u e would be desirable That our former theories on tenderness of nnrecle proteins are not The familiar principle of meat cookery, "High heat toughens protein", seemed t o apply t o the f i b e r proteins i n longissims dorsi m a c l e but not t o those in biceps femoris This contrast in tenderness of the nuscle fibers in the two muscles opens the way t o considerable new research A new approach t o inherent chemical differences may be poseible The heritability of the animal may prove to be related not only t o tenderness as tested by taste panel but a l s o t o tenderness as detek%&pea by chemical methods adequate is indicated by our research U t e r e t u r e Cited 1 Cover, Sylvia, &nnieter, Jo Anne and Kehlenbrink, Ella Effect of f o u r conditions of cooking on the eating q u a l i t y of t w o c u t s of beef Food Research 22: (1957) 2 fqhnwnn, K B Ursachen Studien iiber d i e ULhigkett de6 Fleiscbes und l h r e Archlv fur Hygiene 63, (1907) 3 Schultz, E W Mechnnical methods of measuring tenderness of meat Proceedings, Tenth m a l Reciprocal Meat Conference National Uve Stock and Meat Board, Chicago p 1 7 (1957) MR C O U : Well, was right, thfnk believe you will all agree with me that c e r t a i n l y Miss Cover is doing a f i n e job and, as she said o r as that oldster said, we are continually finding new things that are not right, and we have a real job cut out f o r us i n the f'uture

6 222 Now Vern s a y s that we have a f e w minutes, although my watch says it i s after t i m e, but think we got a l i t t l e l a t e start, and should l i k e t o open the f l o o r t o questions believe that both of these l a s t two t a l k s are available, that they are i n printed form and are being d i s t r i b u t e d incidentally, some of you saw Mr Warwick leave He had t o catch a plane, and if any questions are directed t o him, we w i l l t u r n them over either t o M r Wythe o r MSS Cover t o answer Do you have any questione? MR SULZBACHER: should j u s t l i k e t o say i n response t o Miss Cover's opening remarks that our composition of q u a l i t y investigation group, which i s under t h e d i r e c t i o n of Clifton S w i f t, whom you a l l heard yesterday morning, has been working on the differences i n composition of different muscles, and we are coming up with r a t h e r remarkable d i f f e r ences in t h e proteins of d i f f e r e n t nnrscles Some of the e a r l y r e s u l t s of t h i s work were reported at t h i s y e a r f s AMF meeting, and we look f o r a good many more of them t o be reported as time goes on MR COLE: o r comments? Thank you, M r Sulzbscher Are there o t h e r questions Ew BRATZER: hesitate t o get up an not doubting those correlations, they a r e excellent, but before you f o l k s get too hepped on the bone measurement and length you should ask Leon i f he keeps the whole weights constant on the carcasses have a sneaking suspicion from a recent o r a l examination that the significance went down when the weight was held constant How about t h a t, Leon? MR ORME: don't know MR COLZ: l e f t t h e pieces home T h a t boy is going t o Tennessee e did measurements on t h e cannon bone only on 31 MR O M : W Hereford and Angus c a t t l e of comparable age, comparable conformation, and breeding Our weights and lengths probably were comparable with t h e correlations that were given here i n r e l a t i o n t o weights of wholesale w e l l, w i l l go along with cuts and also t o ribeye area, and think Professor Bratzler think when you run standard coefficients on them and hold the weights constant they decrease q u i t e rapidly MR WY!ME: MR ORME: D i d you run any weight-length r a t i o correlations? No, we did not MR WH3: That might partially answer t h a t MR O m : We combined two of them, the weight and length of the two best ones W e did some circumference measurements and some radius measurements and they were not too good at a l l, on metacarpals and metatarssus Maybe M r Pearson can remember more of the data on the correlations

7 223 MR PEARSON: did not mean t o get i n t o t h i s, eon 1 would,just as soon you left me out because l e f t my memory a t home, too From maanory, t h i n k that our correlations were lower than yours, and we did not combine the length and width measurements, but working with both t h e f r o n t and rear cannon bones from both legs and a l s o working t h i n k x-ray was the thing we worked with x-ray at with x-ray t h e lumbar region, and t h e r e was very good correlation between d i f f e r e n t measurements taken from the lumbar region and the x-rays and the weights of cannon bones in relationship t o a c t u a l leanness, and physical separation of the 9th, 10th and 11th r i b section was q u i t e low should say that i s when you put them on a percentage basis f you put them on a weight, such as your figures are on, they look good f you don't take weight out they look p r e t t y good, but i f you take weight out and put them on a percentage basis they look q u i t e low MR MWCEZ: Our correlatfon looked very much like that u n t i l we removed t h e weight e f f e c t and then the correlation decreased t o a1most either being just barely signfffmt o r t o no significance Bowever, do want t o say that bur boning messurements were a c t u a l measurements on the l i v e animals, that is, we measured the length, the height, and everything We did not attempt to take t h e bones f m m the slaughtered animals and t o make any measurements on the bones per 68 as you indicated That maybe one of the reasons our correlations are s l i g h t l y lower than yours t o begin with e compare t h e ciramf'erence of the l i v e animal MR ORME: W versus t h e circumference of the clean bones and the correlation i s not too good might add here t h a t a few correlations were run MR, WY!FHE: on the Brahma cross bred c a t t l e and it seem from the Brahma blood you get in there you can always t e l l how long the cannon bone is, MR HECK: was wondering i f they had any w a y of measuring the amount of calcium in the bones which m i g h t increase the weight of the bones t could be an indication of bone washed out of calcium and that would influence the weight, would it not? MR, COLE: a while ago bone, believe you said somthing about s p e c i f i c gravity e have made no measurement of the a c t u a l viscous MR WrpBE: W think that needs t o be looked into MR KNG: would l i k e t o ask, did you do s p e c i f i c gravity o r was it a l l l i v e? MR O M : t was all l i v e animal measurements What we t r i e d t o do i n t h i s study is we t r i e d t o c o r r e l a t e t h e various l i v e animal measurements with the carcass W e did not do s p e c i f i c gravity on bone W e did some breaking strengths on bones, t r y i n g t o relate breaking strengths t o tenderness

8 224 MR KNG: should l i k e t o add t h a t we c e r t a i n l y a r e not presenting t h i s as t h e solution by any means with t h a t sm1 number of c a t t l e The f a n t a s t i c r e s u l t s t h a t a r e presented i n t h e l i t e r a t u r e by e our New Zealand workers and our Ebglish workers show some promise W have attempted t o duplicate them and we cannot, o r we have not, but t h i n k it is another t o o l t h a t might be pursued o r used i n trying t o discover some objective measure t h a t might be used in evaluating the l i v e animal without having t o destroy it t o determine whether it i s worth anything o r not MR PEAFEON: should l i k e t o aek one question n our work we have read the c l a i m i n t h e New Zealand l i t e r a t u r e of H e r t z e l and in the Australian l i t e r a t u r e of Mr McMeakin; y e t we have never found data i n d e t a i l that j u s t i f i e s t h e i r statements don't know whether you have found mything i n more detail We have read some popular statements f r o m them but nothing that j u s t i f i e d it f r o m a s c i e n t i f i c standpoint MR, WYTlE: have had some correspondence from Miss Walker and 1 understand that Mr HcMeakin was i n mmpe and was not able t o get in touch with him personally However, heartily agree with t h e statement t h a t you made, MR COLE: should 1 ke t o ask somebody from Texas wbat would have happened if you had used t o t a l bone as compared with one bone correl a t e d with t h e same cuts The same picture, the weight of MR WrraE: MR COLE: No, mean when you do a lean-fat bone separation, i f you j u s t c o r r e l a t e t o t a l separable bone MR KNG: We didn't do that should like t o answer your question, too We had Miss Walker on our campus and we could not get anything out of her either, MR WELLNG!DN: J u s t as a wee b i t of defence of McMeakin and his group, we corresponded with him r e l a t i v e t o statements which he was quoted as making i n the Shorthorn World on t h i s problem of bone and i t s relationship t o muscle weights and he expbsned that he really did not author that a r t i c l e, that it waa rather l i f t e d out, and if you a r e ref e r r i n g t o t h e Shorthorn World report he r e a l l y does not take c r e d i t f o r w h a t is written i n it MR KNG: Walker, George am r e f e r r i n g t o d i r e c t questions asked of Miss MR WYTRE: s n ' t M r Birmingham from New Zedand? Maybe he can answer the question MR DEATBERA;E: Well, would turn back t o Miss Cover She apologized f o r the b i t that she has done, but she i s the only one as f a r as am concerned who has ever done any work on meat cookery t h a t is

9 225 s c i e n t i f i c a l l y s o l i d and really think it i s too bad that she could not t e l l u s a l i t t l e more P a r t i c u l a r l y it is very s i g n i f i c a n t, think, that she has c l e a r l y shown these differences i n muscle that we have known do e x i s t don't know whether she has given anybody else any ideas but she has given me enough ideas t o keep me busy f o r f i v e years if can get some hands t o help me MR, COLE: Miss Cover, that i s your objective, i s n ' t it? MSS COVER: you can g e t i n t o it MR COE: convent ions Yes W e have plenty t o keep u s busy too A l l of think that i s one thing we all realize from these e were q u i t e a c t i v e l y engaged i n the &e of MR R L, HNER: W the objective method f o r determining tenderness of l i v e animals W e appl'oached it from both the chemical and the mechanical tenderness e are now a c t u a l w engaged i n separating the amino acids, and technic W we do f i n d differences We do f i n d d e f i n i t e differences i n t h e amino acid6 on our meat-o-graphs, between muscle from tender animals and muscle from tough animals or between two muscles from the same anlmal, one being tender snd one being tough We are now i n t h e process of t r y i n g t o i d e n t i f y these amino acids o r acids-and t o relate them in our panel t e at i n g W e are also using pressure t o determine tenderness and, as reported a t the AMF meeting, we have a correlation of 899 between t h e pressure required t o exude j u i c e f r o m a pressure sample as compared with a palatability committee which tested t h e meat a f t e r 10 days, That probably i s as high a correlation as have seen with objective procedures W e hope t o increase t h e s i z e of our cylinder, so that we can take a small biopsy sample f r o m t h e semitendinosus of a mund of beef MR, COLE: The Chairman says our t i m e i s up but t h i n k we want t o take j u s t a minute o r two more MR KNG: j u s t want t o ask M r Cole i f he would mind divulging a f e w of h i s secrets He has done some of t h i s work, t o o, a d he has been mighty quiet about it MR C O E : We have not done anything spectacular We have J u s t been doing routine work which we know i s the tedious separation, and don't think we are ready t o report anything as yet W e do have some i n t e r e s t i n g work on types and breeds and f o r one am anxious t o f i n d out we might have a word t o s a y a f t e r we receive t h e report over here Bob Dynes and C a r r o l l Schoonover helped u s t o do the work Let's see what it looks l i k e Question No 1: What grade of beef would you purchase i f you were going t o put it i n t o your locker as a whole side? What i s the t o t a l number by t h e way? MR SCHOOEJOVER: don't know We d i d n ' t tabulate it

10 226 Beef Carcass Evaluation Committee Questionnaire - l l t h Reciprocal Meat Conf'erence What U S, D, A grade of beef would you purchase, if a whole side were t o be processed f o r your locker o r home f r e e z e r? Prime 22$, 2 Choice 467$, Good 478$ and Std 33% ndicate t h e U S D, A grade you would p r e f e r f o r each of the f o u r sections of t h e beef s i d e shown on diagram Take into consideration the usual r e t a i l c u t s obtained from each section V Grade Preference Section 1 P 156 Section 2 P 96 Section 3 P 21 Section 4 P 00 - Ch Gd Std 31 - Ch Gd Std 11 - Ch Gd Std 85 - Ch 32 - Gd Std U t i l Remarks : Approximately 100 p a r t i c i p a n t s (optional) Name AH

11 227 W e have 2 i n prime, 42 i n choice, 43 i n good, and t looks like it i s s t c s - u p between choice and good MR COLE: 3 i n stmdard The second question, section 1, refers t o t h e round broke down in fourths How many of you realized that a aide of beef could be broke down in fourths like that? That is the Meat Board style Those are t h e percentages right off of the Bat Board chart Two prime, 42 choice, 43 good and 3 standard Someone put down the u t i l i t y grade Outside of that they use only f o u r grades O f the No 1 section, which is t h e mund, 15 out of the it 100- like 96 people 15 out of t h e 96 people, which is a c t u a l l y abaut 15 per cent, p r e f e r prime, 45 choice, 33 good and 3 per cent standard C- On the next one, on t h e loin rib section, 9 per cent prime and 61 per cent choice That i s a surprise t o me thought more than that would take prime Twenty-three good and only one standard Then on t h e t h i r d eection, which s t h e chuck section, 2 p e r cent prime, 2 1 per cent choice, 63 p e r cent good, and 8 p e r cent standard n the t h i n meat section, the b e l l y section, no takers on prime, 3 an choice, 4 1 on good, 43 on standard, and 4 on u t i l i t y That points up one thing w i l l have t o dmtt that s o r t of forced t h i s on the committee t h i s survey and that is the complexity of beef carcass evaluation work do not f e e l that we can concentrate on one section and do EL good job n o t h e r words, if we do all our work on t h e r i b section o r t h e l o i n section, we are eliminating w b e 75 per cent of the carcass when we see q u i t e a variance in grades T h a t also points out that the beef animal is far Prom being perfect in any grade, because we don't seem t o have anything we want in, s a y, a side in eny one of t h e grades t makes no difference w h a t it is Now an going t o conclude by saying that know we do have a fat problem in beef carcass evaluation work Maybe we are no b e t t e r o f f than the pork people do f e e l that probably i n pork evaluation there has been quite a b i t of negative thinking on the meat type hog a d that the way t o produce them is t o remove the fat, but that i s j u s t half t h e problem, think i n beef carcass evaluation hope that we a r e not accused of taking a negative approach think that we should assume a p o s i t i v e approach which is B more edible portion of high eating quality Thank you (Applause) C H U M CAEL: think that is a very excellent note on which to end the formal part of our two-day conference r e a l i z e that the discussion periods have not been long enough f o r some of you to get your questions answered; so implore you t o c o r r a l the individuals whom you might think are able to answer your questions and discuss them t o your heart's content during the remainder of the evening and possibly the next day o r two believe that Don Naumann has an announcement concerning the Teaching Committee

12 228 MR NAUMANN: had lunch with Ken Franklin and pointed out t o him t h a t the syllabus of the basic meat course, t o which we referred i n the Teaching Committee, is not i n the previous proceedings of t h i s conference t w i l l be included i n this year's proceedings (See conclusion of proceedings for t h e syllabus) Thank you ########## CHARMAN CAHLL: believe that we are ready f o r o u r business meeting f we follow t h e normal and preferred scheme of handling t h e business meeting and if you f o l k s should vote i n a certain way t h a t would create the necessity f o r a b a l l o t vote, we will f i n d ourselves in a r a t h e r time-conawning s i t u a t i o n So with your permission wonder if we might deviate a l i t t l e and pick up at t h e beginning of OUF business meeting a point which we left l a s t night Yesterday morning we made an announcement concerning some l e t t e r s up here on the table Yesterday afternoon, a t the end of our afternoon session, we discussed it a l i t t l e f'urther am referring, of course, t o Che question as t o whether our 1959 conference will be held i n Chicago o r elsewhere wonder if' you would l i k e t o consider that as the f i r s t item of business i n our meeting today MR KEBlP: M r Chairman, move t h a t we vote on whether o r not t o have it somewhere else by a show of hands CHARMAN CmU: You have put t h a t i n t h e form of a motion you w a n t t o make it one wa;y o r t h e other? 1 " - year, MR KEME): move that i n 1959 only Do am only r e f e r r i n g t o next we need a positive CHARMAN CAHLL: That the 1959 conference approach, think, Jim MR KEMP: move t h a t the 1959 conference be held on a campus "l MR KUNKE: w i l l second that motion C H A M CAELL: t has been moved and seconded that t h e 1959 conference be held on one of t h e campuses MR NAUMANN: For your consideration, would suggest t h a t unless we vote on t h i s every year we might consider changing t h a t motion t o put it i n