Consumer assessment of beef palatability from four beef muscles from USDA Choice and Select graded carcasses

Meat Science 98 (2014) 1–8

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

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

Consumer assessment of beef palatability from four beef muscles from USDA Choice and Select graded carcasses☆ M.R. Hunt, A.J. Garmyn ⁎, T.G. O'Quinn, C.H. Corbin, J.F. Legako, R.J. Rathmann, J.C. Brooks, M.F. Miller Department of Animal and Food Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, 79409, USA

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 20 December 2013 Received in revised form 25 March 2014 Accepted 10 April 2014 Available online 23 April 2014 Keywords: Acceptability Consumer Flavor Muscle characterization Quality grade Tenderness

a b s t r a c t Consumer sensory analysis was conducted to determine differences in beef palatability between two quality grade categories [Upper 2/3 (Top) Choice and Select] and four muscles [longissimus lumborum (LL), gluteus medius (GM), serratus ventralis (SV), and semimembranosus (SM)]. Generally, tenderness, flavor, and overall liking scores were more desirable for Top Choice compared to Select, regardless of muscle. Consumers rated LL as more tender (P b 0.05) than SV and SM, but similar to GM (P = 0.52). Overall and flavor acceptability were similar (P N 0.05) between LL, GM, and SV, regardless of quality grade. Consumer overall liking was most highly correlated with flavor liking (r = 0.85). When tenderness was acceptable, flavor and juiciness played a major role in determining overall acceptability. Overall liking of GM and SV from Top Choice carcasses was superior to LL from Select carcasses and comparable to LL from Top Choice carcasses. © 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction Beef flavor is undoubtedly related to consumer satisfaction. According to Umberger, Feuz, Calkins, and Killinger (2000), consumers can distinguish a flavor difference between strip steaks from two varying marbling levels and are willing to pay premiums for the type of beef flavor they prefer. O'Quinn et al. (2012) showed that fat content associated with USDA quality grade, which is based upon the visual appraisal of marbling and carcass maturity, had a large effect on beef flavor of longissimus lumborum steaks, with beef flavor contributing greatly to overall palatability. A distinct linear decline in flavor rating was observed as quality grade decreased from Prime to Standard. USDA Prime represents the highest quality grade within young “A” maturity carcasses, while USDA Standard, the lowest. Although all palatability traits were related to overall liking, consumer ratings for flavor had the highest correlation to overall liking (O'Quinn et al., 2012). Previous work has shown that flavor becomes the most important aspect of beef eating satisfaction when tenderness is acceptable (Behrends et al., 2005a, 2005b; Goodson et al., 2002; Killinger, Calkins, Umberger, Feuz, & Eskridge, 2004). Moreover, several studies collectively showed that consumer overall acceptability ratings were more highly correlated with flavor ratings than tenderness or juiciness ratings, regardless

☆ This study was funded by the Beef Checkoff. ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 806 742 2805; fax: +1 806 742 4003. E-mail address: [email protected] (A.J. Garmyn).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.04.004 0309-1740/© 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

of tenderness variation (Neely et al., 1998; O'Quinn et al., 2012; Thompson, 2004). Given these results, research was needed to determine if similar beef flavor trends would be observed in muscles other than the longissimus lumborum. We believe that higher intramuscular fat (IMF) content of beef cuts considered intermediate in tenderness or tough will increase consumer flavor ratings and consequently overall palatability. Until recently, the chuck has traditionally been marketed as low-priced roasts (Kukowski, Maddock, Wulf, Fausti, & Taylor, 2005). Following muscle profiling work of the beef chuck and round, the wholesale value of the chuck has increased, thus enhancing the overall value of a beef carcass (Von Seggern, Calking, Johnson, Brickler, & Gwartney, 2005). Moreover, the top sirloin has been associated with inconsistencies in palatability, particularly in tenderness (Harris, Miller, Savell, Cross, & Ringer, 1992; Neely et al., 1998). If overall eating satisfaction of chuck, sirloin, and round cuts from high quality carcasses is comparable to loin cuts from lower quality carcasses, additional value could be captured by marketing muscles with intermediate tenderness, which are currently underutilized in high quality carcasses. Moreover, viable steak alternatives for foodservice establishments may be discovered. Thus, this research explored ways to capitalize on the inherent quality variation of the beef population to add value. Therefore, the first objective of this study was to measure the effects of quality grade on the palatability traits of flavor, tenderness, juiciness, and overall liking of beef strip loin steaks [Institutional Meat Purchase Specifications (IMPS) #180], under blade (Denver cut) steaks (IMPS #116E), top sirloin butt steaks (IMPS # 184), and top round steaks (IMPS #169) (NAMP, 2010) as

2

M.R. Hunt et al. / Meat Science 98 (2014) 1–8

determined by consumers, with emphasis on the role of IMF on beef flavor and overall palatability. The second objective was to determine if higher IMF percentages associated with these quality grades could compensate for reduced tenderness in steaks from underutilized muscles in the chuck, sirloin, and round by improving overall liking through increased flavor. 2. Materials and methods

Marrickville, Australia), preheated to 225 °C. The grill was allowed to preheat for 45 min prior to cooking; each steak was cooked to an internal temperature of 71 °C. Steaks were then cooled for 24 h at 2 °C. Six 1.3-cm cores were removed (unless steak size limited number of cores) parallel to the muscle fiber from each steak and sheared once perpendicular to the muscle fibers. The values from the six cores from each steak were averaged to determine the overall shear force value for the steak for statistical analysis.

2.1. Product collection and sample preparation

2.4. Consumer flavor preparation and panels

The study was arranged as a 2 × 4 factorial representing two quality grade categories [Upper 2/3 (Top) Choice (marbling scores from modest50 to moderate50) and Select (marbling scores from slight00 to slight100)] and four muscles [longissimus lumborum (LL), gluteus medius (GM), serratus ventralis (SV), and semimembranosus (SM)]. Sides (n = 40) of beef (20 per quality grade category) (USDA, 1997) were selected from a commercial beef processing facility. Carcasses were selected and verified by trained Texas Tech University personnel through visual appraisal of marbling and maturity of the product at the time of selection. The strip loin (IMPS #180; NAMP, 2010), top sirloin butt (IMPS #184; NAMP, 2010), and the top round (IMPS #169; NAMP, 2010) from each of the selected sides were identified and collected. The chuck eye roll was removed from the chuck roll leaving only the under blade (IMPS #116E; NAMP, 2010) or serratus ventralis which was fabricated at the plant by trained personnel. All muscles were transported by refrigerated truck to the Gordon W. Davis Meat Science Laboratory in Lubbock, Texas. Subprimals were stored in vacuum bags at 2 to 4 °C in the absence of light until 21 days postmortem. Following 21 days postmortem aging, each muscle was trimmed to remove all visible or external connective tissue and exterior fat. In addition, the gluteus medius was removed from the strip loin. The biceps femoris, gluteus accessories, and gluteus profundus were removed from the top sirloin butt. The gracilis, adductor, pectineus, and sartorius muscles were removed from the top round. The resulting muscles were fabricated into 2.5 cm-thick steaks. A steak from each subprimal was designated for proximate analysis, Warner–Bratzler shear force (WBSF), and fatty acid analysis in a rotational order throughout the muscle to eliminate any bias. All remaining 2.5-cm steaks were portioned into smaller pieces measuring approximately 5 cm × 5 cm. Steaks for proximate analysis, WBSF, fatty acid analysis and consumer testing were packaged, and frozen (−10 °C) until sorting. Once frozen the samples were sorted into a predetermined balanced cook order. Cooking groups (n = 48) of 10 steak pieces from each treatment were packaged and stored in the absence of light at −10 °C until consumer evaluations.

The Texas Tech University Institutional Review Board approved procedures for use of human subjects for consumer panel evaluation of sensory attributes. Samples were thawed at 2 to 4 °C for 24 h prior to consumer evaluation. All samples were cooked on a model S-143K Silex clamshell grill, preheated to 225 °C. The grill was preheated 45 min prior to cooking and 10 steak pieces (unrelated to the trial) were cooked to condition the grill and ensure stable temperatures throughout all heating elements (Gee, 2006). An exact time schedule was followed to ensure all steaks were prepared identically and facilitate continued consistency of the heating elements. Sets of 10 steak pieces were prepared at one time on the grill, for an allotted 5 min. After cooking, steak pieces were held for 3 min before serving. Each steak piece was cut into two, equally-sized portions and served to two predetermined consumer panelists. Consumer panels were conducted in the Texas Tech University Animal and Food Science Building. Consumer panelists (n = 120) were recruited from Lubbock, Texas and the surrounding communities and were prescreened for a minimum of consuming beef at least once in a two week period. Panelists were monetarily compensated for their participation, and were allowed to participate only once. Each session consisted of 20 consumers per panel and lasted approximately 75 min. Attributes for each sample were rated on a paper ballot with 100mm continuous line scales for tenderness, juiciness, liking of flavor, and overall liking. The zero anchors were labeled as not tender, not juicy, and dislike extremely of flavor and overall. Conversely, the 100 anchors were labeled as very tender, very juicy, and like extremely of flavor and overall. In addition, each consumer was asked to rate each trait as acceptable or unacceptable. Consumers were also requested to rate each sample as unsatisfactory, good everyday quality, better than everyday quality, or premium quality. Consumers were served a total of eight samples. Each consumer received all treatments according to a predetermined rotational order. The steak rotation was balanced across all 20 consumers so that each treatment was eaten an equal number of times across all eight sampling positions. The panel was conducted in a large room with tables divided into individual booths. Each panelist was assigned a number. Panelists were provided with a ballot, plastic utensils, toothpicks, a napkin, an expectorant cup, a cup of water, as well as diluted apple juice (10% v/v), and crackers to use as palate cleansers between samples.

2.2. Proximate analysis and pH Proximate analyses were performed to determine the percentage of IMF, collagen, moisture, and protein. Frozen samples were thawed at 2– 5 °C for 24 h prior to analysis. Each sample was finely ground through a commercial food grinder (Krups 150 Watt Meat Grinder item #402-70, Krups, Shelton, CT) to obtain a 200-g sample. Samples were analyzed using an AOAC-approved (AOAC, 2005) near infrared spectrophotometer (FOSS FoodScan 78800; Dedicated Analytical Solutions, Hilleroed, Denmark). Independent readings (n = 15) were taken from each sample and averaged for the final reported values. At grinding, a 10-g sample was reserved for analysis of pH using the methods described by Luque et al. (2011). 2.3. Warner–Bratzler shear force evaluation Shear force of each steak was determined by using a WBSF analyzer (G-R Elec. Mfg., Manhattan, KS). Steaks were thawed for 18–24 h until a 2 to 5 °C internal temperature was reached. Steaks were cooked on a model S-143K Silex clamshell grill (Silex Grills Australia PTY. Ltd.,

2.5. Statistical methods Consumer data were analyzed as a complete block design with a 2 × 4 factorial arrangement. Muscle and quality grade served as fixed effects, and consumer was included in the model as a random variable. The MIXED procedure of SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC) was used to analyze the effect of quality grade and muscle on consumer responses, proximate analysis, and WBSF. Acceptability and satisfaction data were analyzed using the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS, with the ILINK option of the LSMEANS statement of SAS used to calculate least squares means for the proportions. Treatment least squares means were separated with the PDIFF option of SAS at a significance level of P b 0.05. The CORR procedure of SAS was used to determine the relationship between consumer responses and proximate data,

M.R. Hunt et al. / Meat Science 98 (2014) 1–8

and WBSF across all samples and by muscle at a significance level of P b 0.05.

3. Results and discussion 3.1. Consumer demographics Consumer preferences in Lubbock, Texas have reportedly been similar to preferences of beef consumers in other major metropolitan areas throughout the country such as, Los Angeles, CA; Chicago, IL; and Washington D.C. (Miller, Carr, Ramsey, Crockett, & Hoover, 2001). The demographic profile of the consumers that participated in this study is presented in Table 1. Slightly more males participated in the study than females. This varies slightly from the national average as reported by the 2012 Statistical Abstract (U.S. Census Bureau, 2012) with 49.2% of the population being male and 50.8% being female. The ages of the consumers were distributed from 18 to 65 with the 18–25 group having the most participants (33.1%). Moreover, the 26–35 age group had the least number of participants with only 10.2%. The majority of the consumers were Caucasian, which is about 10% higher than the national average (79.6%; U.S. Census Bureau, 2012). Each annual household income bracket was represented by the consumers tested, but the largest number of participants (29.1%) represented the $70,000–100,000 range. The education level was higher than that of the US population with 58% being college graduates or post graduates.

Table 1 Demographic characteristics of consumers (n = 120) who participated in consumer sensory panels. Characteristic

Response

% of consumers

Sex

Male Female 1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People 5 People 6 People N6 People Single income Dual income 18–25 26–35 36–45 46–55 56–65 African–American Caucasian/White Native American Hispanic Asian Other b20,000 20,000 to 29,999 30,000 to 49,999 50,000 to 69,999 70,000 to 100,000 N100,000 Non-high school graduate High school graduate Some college/technical school College graduate Post graduate None 1 to 3 times 4 to 6 times 7 or more times

52.59 47.41 14.17 22.50 14.17 30.00 10.00 7.05 1.67 40 60 33.05 10.17 20.34 24.58 11.86 0.01 88.98 1.69 0.85 6.78 1.69 10.26 5.13 17.09 11.11 29.06 27.35 1.67 12.50 27.50 42.50 15.83 6.67 44.17 35.83 13.33

Household size

Household income Age

Ethnic origin

Annual household income, US $

Highest level of education completed

Weekly beef consumption

3

3.2. Consumer purchasing habits The beef purchasing habits of the consumers who participated in the sensory study are presented in Table 2. Nearly 80% of the consumers stated they were the regular purchaser of beef for the family. When buying steaks or roasts, 51.3% of the consumers stated they normally purchase USDA Choice, followed by 12.6% Sterling Silver, 6.7% USDA Select, and 5% USDA Prime and Certified Angus Beef. When consuming steaks and roasts, participants indicated the most important trait was tenderness (57% and 70%, respectively). Flavor ranked second when consuming steaks at 35%. Moreover, 94% of participants said they have an excellent eating experience “almost always” or “some of the time” when eating beef. 3.3. Proximate analysis and pH Table 3 illustrates the relationships of muscle and quality grade with proximate components of raw muscle samples. Muscle and quality grade influenced (P b 0.01) percent IMF, collagen, and protein, while an interaction was observed (P = 0.04) between muscle and quality grade for the percentage of moisture. SV had greater IMF and collagen percentages than any other muscle and, consequently, the least percentage protein. The percent of IMF in the muscles from the loin (LL and GM) was intermediate, while the SM had lower IMF percentage than any other muscle. In alignment with the current results, similar trends in moisture and IMF have been observed between muscles by McKeith, De Vol, Miles, Bechtel, & Carr (1985) and Von Seggern et al. (2005). Collagen percentage was less than 2% in the GM, LL, and SM; however, the percent in LL was similar (P = 0.61) to GM and SM. Conversely, protein percentage was greatest in SM and LL, although the percent of protein found in GM did not differ (P = 0.12) from LL. Top Choice had a greater (P b 0.01) percent of IMF and collagen as well as a lower (P b 0.01) percentage of protein regardless of muscle. Within each muscle, the proportion of moisture was reduced as quality grade increased from Select to Top Choice. The Top Choice SV had less moisture than any other treatment combination, while the Select SM and LL had the greatest proportion of moisture. Within each quality grade, SV generally had the least percentage moisture with SM containing the greatest. Although pH for all samples was within acceptable ranges (b5.8), SV had pH values greater (P b 0.01) than all other muscles (Table 3). Table 2 Beef purchasing habits of consumers (n = 120) who participated in consumer sensory panels. Characteristic

Response

% of consumers

Consumer is a regular purchaser of beef in family Quality of steaks or roasts normally purchased

Yes No USDA Prime USDA Choice USDA Select Certified Angus Beef Store Brand Sterling Silver Chef's Exclusive Foreman's Choice Nolan Ryan's Beef Steak House brand Do not know Flavor Tenderness Juiciness Flavor Tenderness Juiciness Almost always Some of the time Almost never Never

78.33 21.67 5.04 51.26 6.72 5.04 1.68 12.61 1.68 1.68 0.00 0.84 13.45 21.01 69.75 9.24 35.29 57.14 7.56 51.67 42.50 5.00 0.83

Most important palatability trait when consuming beef roasts Most important palatability trait when consuming beef steaks How often the consumer has an excellent eating experience

4

M.R. Hunt et al. / Meat Science 98 (2014) 1–8

Table 3 The effects of muscle and quality grade1 on the least square means for percentage chemical intramuscular fat (IMF), protein, moisture, collagen and pH of raw samples (n = 106). Trait

Gluteus medius (n = 36) Select

IMF, % Protein, % Moisture, % Collagen, % pH

Top Choice

y

y

3.82 22.93b 70.92b 1.85z 5.50z

Longissimus lumborum (n = 12)

Semimembranosus (n = 18)

Serratus ventralis (n = 40)

Select

Select

Select

Top Choice

y

6.35 22.56b 68.82d 2.11z 5.47z

y

2.95 23.36ab 71.94ab 1.90z 5.61y

Top Choice

z

6.85 22.81ab 68.55d 1.98z 5.55y

z

1.61 23.41a 72.46a 1.71z 5.62y

Top Choice

x

3.41 22.97a 70.96b 1.82z 5.55y

SEM2

x

7.48 20.76c 69.92c 2.15y 5.78x

11.90 19.92c 66.26e 2.44y 5.78x

0.88 0.19 0.63 0.09 0.03

P-value3 Muscle

QG

M × QG

b0.01 b0.01 b0.01 b0.01 b0.01

b0.01 b0.01 b0.01 b0.01 0.09

0.11 0.47 0.04 0.40 0.72

1

Quality grade: Select (marbling score: slight00 to slight100) or Top Choice (marbling score: modest50 to moderate50). Pooled (largest) SE of LS means. 3 Observed significance levels for main effects of muscle (M), quality grade (QG), and the muscle × quality grade interaction. a–d Within a row, least squares means without a common superscript differ (P b 0.05) due to muscle × quality grade interaction. xyz Within a row, least squares means without a common superscript differ (P b 0.05) due to muscle. 2

McKenna et al. (2005) reported pH of several muscles during simulated retail display, including the four evaluated in the current study. Much like the present results, SV had a greater pH than LL, SM, or GM, and minimal differences in pH values were observed during the display period. Likewise, Von Seggern et al. (2005) reported similar trends for pH values between muscles as the present results. 3.4. Warner–Bratzler shear force The relationships between muscle and quality grade with WBSF and cooking loss are depicted in Table 4. No interactions were observed (P N 0.05) for either trait. Least squares means for all muscles were below 45.1 N, which is often cited as the critical value where consumers begin to rate LL steaks as “tough” as opposed to “tender” (Miller et al., 2001; Shackelford, Morgan, Cross, & Savell, 1991). Regardless, SM had greater (P b 0.05) WBSF values than any other muscle except the GM. Although SV had the least numerical WBSF value, LL and SV required similar force to shear (P N 0.05), which is supported by Johnson et al. (1988) and Paterson and Parrish (1986). Regardless of muscle, USDA Select steaks had greater (P b 0.01) WBSF values compared to Top Choice. Cooking loss was not impacted by muscle or quality grade (P N 0.05). McKeith, De Vol, Miles, Bechtel, and Carr (1985) and Rhee, Wheeler, Shackelford, and Koohmaraie (2004) reported similar rankings of shear values when evaluating WBSF of various muscles including LL, GM, and SM; however, SV was not included in either study. Moreover, WBSF values reported by Rhee et al. (2004) were greater than those in the current study; however, steaks were aged until 14 days postmortem (as opposed to 21 days in the current study), which may explain a portion of the variation. When characterizing the muscles of the round, Von Seggern et al. (2005) classified the GM with a WBSF value N47.96 N, but the SM had an intermediate classification (37.76 N b WBSF N 47.96 N), which conflicts with the current findings as both values were greater than the current study. Again, this may be due to the shorter postmortem aging period of 14 days implemented by Von Seggern et al. (2005). Their classification of the SV, however, as a muscle with WBSF b 37.76 N aligns with the present results. In contrast to the current findings, Nelson, Dolezal, Ray, and Morgan (2004) reported an interaction for WBSF between quality grade and muscle.

Three of which are included in this study (LL, GM, and SM). In their study, Top Choice (Certified Angus Beef) had greater WBSF values in the LL and GM, but not in SM, when compared to Select. Steaks were aged 14 days in Nelson's study and 21 days in the present study; however, the GM had greater shear values than the SM regardless of quality grade, which again contradicts the current results. In support of the current findings, Smith et al. (1985) reported steaks from carcasses with higher marbling scores had lower shear force values than steaks with lower marbling scores. Likewise, Lorenzen et al. (2003) reported that USDA Select had higher shear values than USDA Choice. Additional research has shown that as the quality grade of beef cuts increased, WBSF values decreased, suggesting marbling has a positive effect on objective measurements of meat tenderness (Garmyn et al., 2011; Gruber et al., 2006; Nelson et al., 2004). 3.5. Tenderness Consumer ratings for all tenderness scores are shown in Table 5. Tenderness scores were more desirable (P b 0.01) for Top Choice (63.79) compared to Select (52.54), regardless of muscle. Consumers rated LL (68.06) as more tender (P b 0.01) than SV (63.28) and SM (34.72), but similar to GM (66.59; P N 0.05). Consumers scored the tenderness of SM far lower (P b 0.05) than any other muscle, which aligns with the greater shear force values. However, a more distinct separation was observed in consumer tenderness scores than WBSF between SM and the other muscles. Previous consumer studies involving muscles from the chuck often compare those muscles to the longissimus muscle from the wholesale rib (LT), creating challenges when comparing to the current study. Kukowski et al. (2005) observed similar results to ours when consumers evaluated USDA Choice LT and SV, where LT tenderness scores were more desirable than those for SV. Similarly, Kukowski, Maddock, and Wulf (2004) reported greater consumer tenderness scores for USDA Select LT compared to SV. However, consumers have also rated tenderness similarly between USDA Choice LT and SV (Kukowski et al., 2004). Trends from the Beef Customer Satisfaction study align with the current results in terms of consumer ratings for tenderness of top loin, top sirloin, and top round (Neely et al., 1998). Ranking of overall tenderness

Table 4 The effects of muscle and quality grade1 on the least square means for Warner–Bratzler shear force (WBSF) and cooking loss (n = 106). Trait

Gluteus medius (n = 36) Select

WBSF, N Cooking loss, % 1

xy

31.48 25.50

Top Choice xy

30.79 22.74

Longissimus lumborum (n = 12)

Semimembranosus (n = 18)

Serratus ventralis (n = 40)

Select

Select

Select

yz

32.07 22.62

Top Choice yz

24.42 22.37

x

34.23 22.78

Top Choice x

33.15 21.44

z

27.85 23.12

Top Choice z

22.56 23.54

Quality grade: Select (marbling score: slight00 to slight100) or Top Choice (marbling score: modest50 to moderate50). Pooled (largest) SE of LS means. 3 Observed significance levels for main effects of muscle (M), quality grade (QG), and the muscle × quality grade interaction. xyz Within a row, least squares means without a common superscript differ (P b 0.05) due to muscle. 2

SEM2

1.77 1.42

P-value3 Muscle

QG

M × QG

b0.01 0.51

b0.01 0.36

0.11 0.56

M.R. Hunt et al. / Meat Science 98 (2014) 1–8

5

Table 5 The effects of muscle and quality grade1 on the least square means for consumer (n = 120) sensory scores1 for palatability traits. Trait

Gluteus medius (n = 36) Select

Tenderness Juiciness Flavor Overall liking

Top Choice

xy

xy

62.01 57.57d 59.22c 59.28c

71.17 67.02c 68.78ab 68.67ab

Longissimus lumborum (n = 12)

Semimembranosus (n =18)

Serratus ventralis (n = 40)

Select

Select

Select

x

60.36 58.45d 57.17cd 54.53c

Top Choice x

75.77 70.51bc 72.07a 73.95a

z

31.83 48.96e 50.00e 42.50d

Top Choice z

37.60 48.99e 52.46de 46.61d

y

56.45 73.21b 60.22c 58.05c

SEM2

Top Choice y

70.60 82.24a 66.78b 68.10b

2.15 1.99 2.03 2.38

P-value3 Muscle

QG

M × QG

b0.01 b0.01 b0.01 b0.01

b0.01 b0.01 b0.01 b0.01

0.07 b0.01 b0.01 b0.01

1

Quality grade: Select (marbling score: slight00 to slight100) or Top Choice (marbling score: modest50 to moderate50). Pooled (largest) SE of LS means. 3 Observed significance levels for main effects of muscle (M), quality grade (QG), and the muscle × quality grade interaction. a–e Within a row, least squares means without a common superscript differ (P b 0.05) due to muscle × quality grade interaction. xyz Within a row, least squares means without a common superscript differ (P b 0.05) due to muscle. 2

of LL, GM, and SM by trained sensory assessors also aligns with the present findings (McKeith et al., 1985; Rhee et al., 2004). 3.6. Juiciness Unlike tenderness, an interaction was observed (P ≤ 0.02) between muscle and quality grade for consumer ratings of juiciness, flavor liking, and overall liking (Table 5). Top Choice SV had more desirable (P = 0.02) consumer scores for juiciness than any other muscle × quality grade combination, followed by Select SV. The SV had the greatest pH of all muscles, as well as the greatest IMF percentage, which could have played a role in consumer juiciness ratings. Semimembranosus Top Choice and Select steaks had the least desirable juiciness scores, but did not differ (P N 0.05) between the two grades. Kukowski et al. (2004) observed similar results to ours when consumers evaluated USDA Choice and Select LT and SV, where SV juiciness scores were greater than those for LT. However, consumers assigned greater juiciness scores to USDA Choice LT than SV in a separate study (Kukowski et al., 2005). In the Beef Customer Satisfaction study (Neely et al., 1998), consumers scored top loin juicier than top sirloin, which was in turn was juicier than top round based on in-home steak evaluations. In the current study, however, LL and GM received greater juiciness scores than SM, but loin cuts did not differ within their respective quality grades when cooking method was controlled. Discrepancies could be partially explained by different cooking methods, which McKenna et al. (2004) reported can affect consumer ratings for juiciness. Results from trained evaluations of juiciness vary from the current findings as well as previous consumer work. Rhee et al. (2004) did not observe any differences in juiciness between LL, GM, and SM; however, McKeith et al. (1985) reported greater juiciness scores for LL compared to SM and GM, which had similar scores for juiciness. 3.7. Flavor and overall liking For all muscles except SM, consumer scores for flavor liking and overall liking were more desirable for Top Choice compared to

Select (Table 5). Consumer scores for flavor liking and overall liking showed similar trends as consumers rated Top Choice LL and GM higher (P ≤ 0.02) than the remaining muscle × quality grade combinations; however, Top Choice SV was similar to Top Choice GM for flavor and overall liking. When consumers evaluated USDA Choice SV and LT, they found SV had more intense flavor and SV were more liked, but no differences were observed between USDA Select SV and LT for flavor intensity or overall liking (Kukowski et al., 2004). In the current study, consumers rated flavor and overall liking similarly for LL, GM, and SV within Select. Within Top Choice, however, LL received greater scores than SV for flavor and overall liking. Neely et al. (1998) reported more desirable overall liking scores for Top Choice top loin and top round compared to Select, but consumers showed no preference for higher quality grades of top sirloin butt. Aside from top loin, these results do not fully agree with the current findings. Moreover, those consumers (Neely et al., 1998) preferred top loin over top sirloin regardless of quality grade, as indicated by more desirable overall liking scores, which conflicts with the current results as Top Choice LL and GM had similar scores for overall liking.

3.8. Consumer acceptability scores As seen in Table 6, both muscle and quality grade influenced (P ≤ 0.05) the percentage of samples rated as acceptable for tenderness, juiciness, flavor liking, and overall liking. The SM showed the lowest (P b 0.01) percentage of acceptability for all palatability traits. For tenderness, LL and GM had the greatest proportion of acceptable samples, while SV was intermediate. According to consumers, SV and GM had the greatest percentage of samples with acceptable juiciness, followed by LL, which was intermediate to SM. The percentage of samples that were rated acceptable for flavor and overall liking was similar (P N 0.05) for GM, SV, and LL. A decrease (P ≤ 0.05) in the proportion of acceptable samples for each palatability trait was observed as quality grade decreased from Top Choice to Select.

Table 6 The effects of muscle and quality grade1 on the percentage of samples rated as acceptable by consumers (n = 120) for tenderness, juiciness, flavor liking, and overall liking. Trait

Tenderness Juiciness Flavor Overall liking 1

Gluteus medius (n = 36)

Longissimus lumborum (n = 12)

Semimembranosus (n = 18)

Serratus ventralis (n = 40)

Select

Top Choice

Select

Top Choice

Select

Top Choice

Select

Top Choice

90.61x 91.66x 90.78y 85.17y

96.15x 95.34x 95.48y 94.75y

88.19x 84.47y 89.18y 83.52y

95.37x 90.65y 93.93y 93.20y

49.91z 73.20z 81.79z 67.33z

60.30z 78.50z 83.45z 73.39z

77.41y 95.34x 89.18y 90.83y

91.41y 97.41x 91.58y 90.83y

Quality grade: Select (marbling score: slight00 to slight100) or Top Choice (marbling score: modest50 to moderate50). Pooled (largest) SE of LS means. 3 Observed significance levels for main effects of muscle (M), quality grade (QG), and the muscle × quality grade interaction. xyz Within a row, least squares means without a common superscript differ (P b 0.05) due to muscle. 2

SEM2

P-value3 Muscle

QG

M × QG

3.66 3.34 2.68 3.37

b0.01 b0.01 b0.01 b0.01

b0.01 0.03 0.05 b0.01

0.41 0.91 0.69 0.17

6

M.R. Hunt et al. / Meat Science 98 (2014) 1–8

Table 7 The effects of muscle and quality grade1 on the percentage of samples rated at different perceived quality levels by consumers (n = 120). Quality level

Gluteus medius Select

Unsatisfactory Good everyday quality Better than everyday quality Premium quality

Longissimus lumborum

Top Choice

c

d

15.01 50.43ab 26.77y 6.66y

3.74 39.88bc 37.42y 18.22y

Select bc

19.06 52.54a 19.03y 8.26y

Top Choice d

Semimembranosus

Serratus ventralis

Select

Select

Top Choice

a

4.52 32.31cd 36.58y 25.73y

37.96 52.54a 6.58z 2.47z

ab

28.41 55.92a 12.38z 2.47z

c

15.72 50.01ab 24.03y 9.09y

SEM2

Top Choice c

14.08 26.43d 34.07y 24.06y

4.82 4.72 4.51 3.97

P-value3 Muscle

QG

M × QG

b0.01 b0.01 b0.01 b0.01

b0.01 b0.01 b0.01 b0.01

0.03 0.01 0.73 0.53

1

Quality grade: Select (marbling score: slight00 to slight100) or Top Choice (marbling score: modest50 to moderate50). Pooled (largest) SE of LS means. 3 Observed significance levels for main effects of muscle (M), quality grade (QG), and the muscle × quality grade interaction. a–d Within a row, least squares means without a common superscript differ (P b 0.05) due to muscle × quality grade interaction. yz Within a row, least squares means without a common superscript differ (P b 0.05) due to muscle. 2

3.9. Consumer perceived quality levels Consumer perceived quality levels are presented in Table 7. Muscle and quality grade interacted (P ≤ 0.03) to influence the percentage of samples considered “unsatisfactory” and “good everyday quality.” Top Choice GM and LL were considered “unsatisfactory” less often than any other muscle × quality grade combination, while SM were rated as “unsatisfactory” more often than all other muscles. Numerically, consumers considered Top Choice SV “good everyday quality” less often than other muscle × quality grade combinations, but this percentage was similar to Top Choice LL (P N 0.05). GM, LL, and SV were rated as “better than everyday quality” and “premium quality” more often (P b 0.05) than SM, regardless of quality grade. A greater percentage (P b 0.01) of Top Choice steaks were considered “better than everyday quality” and “premium quality” compared to Select.

3.10. Correlations To estimate the extent to which palatability scores and objective measures influenced overall liking, correlations between palatability traits, compositional data, and WBSF were determined (Table 8). Consumer overall liking was correlated (P b 0.01) with consumer

tenderness (r = 0.75) and juiciness ratings (r = 0. 68), but most highly correlated with flavor liking (r = 0.86). Overall liking, tenderness, juiciness, and flavor were negatively related (P b 0.01) to WBSF (r ≤ − 0.29). Each of the proximate components was related (P b 0.01) to overall liking. As the percentage of IMF increased, overall liking increased, while moisture and protein were inversely related to overall liking. With all muscles combined, WBSF and proximate components were associated (P b 0.05) with overall liking, but the relationships were relatively weak. Neely et al. (1998) showed strong, positive relationships between overall liking with tenderness, juiciness, and flavor desirability of top loin, top sirloin butt, and top round. O'Quinn et al. (2012) found that fat content had an effect on beef flavor of the LL, and the importance of beef flavor was clearly linked to overall palatability. The correlations between palatability traits and overall liking were similar with those reported by O'Quinn et al. (2012). Pearson correlations between palatability traits, compositional data, and WBSF for GM, LL, SM, and SV, respectively, are presented in Tables 9 to 12. Coefficients for tenderness, juiciness, flavor liking, and overall liking of LL closely resemble those for all muscles; however, the relationships between overall liking, WBSF, and proximate components were stronger. Coefficients for tenderness, juiciness, flavor liking, and overall liking of SM indicated weaker relationships than for all muscles. The relationships between overall liking, WBSF, and proximate components

Table 8 Pearson's correlation coefficients for the relationships between consumer sensory scores, proximate data, and Warner–Bratzler shear force data a.

Tenderness Juiciness Flavor WBSF %Intramuscular fat (IMF) %Collagen %Moisture %Protein a

Overall liking

Tenderness

Juiciness

Flavor

WBSF

%IMF

%Collagen

%Moisture

0.75 0.68 0.86 −0.22 0.31 0.25 −0.33 −0.19

0.60 0.59 −0.21 0.35 0.28 −0.35 −0.20

0.58 −0.29 0.41 0.34 −0.37 −0.38

−0.20 0.25 0.20 −0.26 −0.15

−0.52 −0.33 0.49 0.48

0.79 −0.95 −0.87

−0.72 −0.69

0.72

All correlation coefficients were significant (P b 0.01).

Table 9 Pearson's correlation coefficients for the relationships between consumer sensory scores, proximate data, and Warner–Bratzler shear force data for the gluteus medius. Overall liking Tenderness Juiciness Flavor WBSF %Intramuscular fat (IMF) %Collagen %Moisture %Protein a b

Tenderness

Juiciness

Flavor

WBSF

%IMF

%Collagen

%Moisture

0.62a 0.62a −0.01 0.26a 0.08 −0.23a −0.18a

0.65a −0.03 0.25a 0.19a −0.21a −0.20a

−0.07 0.21a 0.15b −0.19a −0.16b

0.01 −0.15b −0.09 0.36a

0.53a −0.93a −0.53a

−0.45a −0.14b

0.38a

a

0.72 0.73a 0.88a −0.02 0.24a 0.18a −0.21a −0.15b

Correlation coefficients were significant (P b 0.01). Correlation coefficients were significant (P b 0.05).

M.R. Hunt et al. / Meat Science 98 (2014) 1–8

7

Table 10 Pearson's correlation coefficients for the relationships between consumer sensory scores, proximate data, and Warner–Bratzler shear force data for the longissimusa.

Tenderness Juiciness Flavor WBSF %Intramuscular fat (IMF) %Collagen %Moisture %Protein a

Overall liking

Tenderness

Juiciness

Flavor

WBSF

%IMF

%Collagen

%Moisture

0.78 0.73 0.87 −0.34 0.42 0.26 −0.41 −0.30

0.64 0.62 −0.22 0.32 0.25 −0.30 −0.22

0.63 −0.28 0.29 0.20 −0.27 −0.26

−0.30 0.37 0.23 −0.37 −0.29

−0.72 −0.27 0.71 0.79

0.32 −0.98 −0.73

−0.17 −0.41

0.67

All correlation coefficients were significant (P b 0.01).

were not significant for SM. Overall liking was not correlated with (P N 0.05) WBSF for GM; however, the remaining coefficients indicated similar relationships to those of all muscles. For SV, flavor liking (r = 0.87) was highly correlated with overall liking, but tenderness (r = 0.65) and juiciness (r = 0.56) showed weaker relationships to overall liking than observed with other muscles.

4. Conclusions All three palatability traits played a major role in determining overall acceptability as indicated by high correlation coefficients for each trait. Even when consumers scored tenderness low, as with the SM, superior flavor and juiciness could compensate to improve the overall liking and acceptability of beef. Overall liking of SV and GM from higher quality carcasses was superior to LL from lower quality carcasses and comparable to LL from higher quality carcasses. The SV Top Choice was most desirable for juiciness compared to all other muscle × quality grade treatments, perhaps due to higher pH values increasing water-holding capacity within the SV and greater IMF of SV than any other muscle. Overall, results showed that marketing the GM and SV from Top Choice carcasses on the basis of comparable overall consumer acceptability to Top Choice LL could add additional value to the carcass.

References AOAC (2005). Official methods of analysis Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem., Arlington, VA (18th ed.). Behrends, J. M., Goodson, K. J., Koohmaraie, M., Shackelford, S. D., Wheeler, T. L., Morgan, W. W., Reagan, J. O., Gwartney, B.L., Wise, J. W., & Savell, J. W. (2005a). Beef customer satisfaction: Factors affecting consumer evaluations of calcium chloride-injected top sirloin steaks when given instructions for preparation. Journal of Animal Science, 83, 2869–2875. Behrends, J. M., Goodson, K. J., Koohmaraie, M., Shackelford, S. D., Wheeler, T. L., Morgan, W. W., Reagan, J. O., Gwartney, B.L., Wise, J. W., & Savell, J. W. (2005b). Beef customer satisfaction: USDA quality grade and marination effects on consumer evaluations of top round steaks. Journal of Animal Science, 83, 662–670. Garmyn, A. J., Hilton, G. G., Mateescu, R. G., Morgan, J. B., Reecy, J. M., Tait, R. G., Jr., Beitz, D. C., Duan, Q., Schoonmaker, J. P., Mayes, M. S., Drewnoski, M. E., Liu, Q., & VanOverbeke, D. L. (2011). Estimation of relationships between mineral concentration and fatty acid composition of longissimus muscle and beef palatability traits. Journal of Animal Science, 89, 2849–2858. Gee, A. (2006). Protocol Book 4: For the thawing preparation, cooking and serving of beef for MSA [Meat Standards Australia] pathway trials. North Sydney: Meat and Livestock Australia. Goodson, K. J., Morgan, W. W., Reagan, J. O., Gwartney, B.L., Courington, S. M., Wise, J. W., & Savell, J. W. (2002). Beef customer satisfaction: Factors affecting consumer evaluations of clod steaks. Journal of Animal Science, 80, 401–408. Gruber, S. L., Tatum, J.D., Scanga, J. A., Chapman, P. L., Smith, G. C., & Belk, K. E. (2006). Effects of postmortem aging and USDA quality grade on Warner–Bratzler shear force values of seventeen individual beef muscles. Journal of Animal Science, 84, 3387–3396. Harris, J. J., Miller, R. K., Savell, J. W., Cross, H. R., & Ringer, L. J. (1992). Evaluation of the tenderness of beef top sirloin steaks. Journal of Food Science, 57(6–9), 15. Johnson, R. C., Chen, C. M., Muller, T. S., Costello, W. J., Romans, J. R., & Jones, K. W. (1988). Characterization of the muscles within the beef forequarter. Journal of Food Science, 53, 1247–1250.

Table 11 Pearson's correlation coefficients for the relationships between consumer sensory scores, proximate data, and Warner–Bratzler shear force data for the semimembranosus.

Tenderness Juiciness Flavor WBSF %Intramuscular fat (IMF) %Collagen %Moisture %Protein a b

Overall liking

Tenderness

Juiciness

Flavor

WBSF

%IMF

%Collagen

%Moisture

0.70a 0.64a 0.80a 0.05 −0.02 0.03 0.02 0.04

0.43a 0.51a 0.15b 0.04 0.09 −0.01 −0.04

0.54a −0.01 −0.05 −0.03 0.02 0.02

0.03 0.01 0.06 0.01 −0.02

−0.04 0.25a 0.20a −0.32a

0.68a −0.93a −0.71a

−0.47a −0.51a

0.59a

Correlation coefficients were significant (P b 0.01). Correlation coefficients were significant (P b 0.05).

Table 12 Pearson's correlation coefficients for the relationships between consumer sensory scores, proximate data, and Warner–Bratzler shear force data for the Serratus ventralis. Overall liking Tenderness Juiciness Flavor WBSF %Intramuscular fat (IMF) %Collagen %Moisture %Protein a b

Tenderness

Juiciness

Flavor

WBSF

%IMF

%Collagen

%Moisture

0.55a 0.50a −0.18a 0.25a 0.14b −0.25a −0.19a

0.47a −0.27a 0.24a 0.16b −0.24a −0.21a

−0.17a 0.20a 0.12 −0.20a −0.17a

−0.47a −0.23a 0.43a 0.54a

0.76a −0.98a −0.90a

−0.78a −0.55a

0.83a

a

0.65 0.56a 0.87a −0.16b 0.26a 0.15b −0.26a −0.23a

Correlation coefficients were significant (P b 0.01). Correlation coefficients were significant (P b 0.05).

8

M.R. Hunt et al. / Meat Science 98 (2014) 1–8

Killinger, K. M., Calkins, C. R., Umberger, W. J., Feuz, D.M., & Eskridge, K. M. (2004). Consumer sensory acceptance and value for beef steaks of similar tenderness, but differing in marbling level. Journal of Animal Science, 82, 3294–3301. Kukowski, A.C., Maddock, R. J., & Wulf, D.M. (2004). Evaluating consumer acceptability of various muscles from the beef chuck and rib. Journal of Animal Science, 82, 521–525. Kukowski, A.C., Maddock, R. J., Wulf, D.M., Fausti, S. W., & Taylor, G. L. (2005). Evaluating consumer acceptbaility and willingness to pay for various beef chuck msucles. Journal of Animal Science, 83, 2605–2610. Lorenzen, C. L., Miller, R. K., Taylor, J. F., Neely, T. R., Tatum, J.D., Wise, J. W., Buyck, M. J., Reagan, J. O., & Savell, J. W. (2003). Beef customer satisfaction: Trained sensory panel ratings and Warner–Bratzler shear force values. Journal of Animal Science, 81, 143–149. Luque, L. D., Johnson, B. J., Martin, J. N., Miller, M. F., Hodgen, J. M., Hutcheson, J. P., Nichols, W. T., Streeter, M. N., Yates, D. A., Allen, D.M., & Brooks, J. C. (2011). Zilpaterol hydrochloride supplementation has no effect on the shelf life of ground beef. Journal of Animal Science, 89, 817–825. McKeith, F. K., De Vol, D. L., Miles, R. S., Bechtel, P. J., & Carr, T. C. (1985). Chemical and sensory properties of thirteen major beef muscles. Journal of Food Science, 50, 869–872. McKenna, D. R., Mies, P. D., Baird, B. E., Pfeiffer, K. D., Ellebracht, J. W., & Savell, J. W. (2005). Biochemical and physical factors affecting discoloration characteristics of 19 bovine muscles. Meat Science, 70, 665–682. McKenna, D. R., Lorenzen, C. L., Pollok, K. D., Morgan, W. W., Mies, W. L., Harris, J. J., Murphy, R., McAdams, M., Hale, D. S., & Savell, J. W. (2004). Interrelationships of breed type, USDA quality grade, cooking method, and degree of doneness on consumer evaluations of beef in Dallas and San Antonio, Texas, USA. Meat Science, 66, 399–406. Miller, M. F., Carr, M.A., Ramsey, C. B., Crockett, K. L., & Hoover, L. C. (2001). Consumer thresholds for establishing the value of beef tenderness. Journal of Animal Science, 79, 3062–3068. NAMP (2010). The meat buyer's guide (6th ed.). Reston, VA: North American Meat Processors Association. Neely, T. R., Lorenzen, C. L., Miller, R. K., Tatum, J.D., Wise, J. W., Taylor, J. F., Buyck, M. J., Reagan, J. O., & Savell, J. W. (1998). Beef customer satisfaction: Role of cut, USDA quality grade, and city on in-home consumer ratings. Journal of Animal Science, 76, 1027–1033.

Nelson, J. L., Dolezal, H. G., Ray, F. K., & Morgan, J. B. (2004). Characterization of certified Angus Beef steaks from the round, loin, and chuck. Journal of Animal Science, 82, 1437–1444. O'Quinn, T. G., Brooks, J. C., Polkinghorne, R. J., Garmyn, A. J., Johnson, B. J., Starkey, J.D., Rathmann, R. J., & Miller, M. F. (2012). Consumer assessment of beef strip loin steaks of varying fat levels. Journal of Animal Science, 90, 626–634. Paterson, B. C., & Parrish, F. C., Jr. (1986). A sensory panel and chemical analysis of certain beef chuck muscles. Journal of Food Science, 51, 876–879. Rhee, M. S., Wheeler, T. L., Shackelford, S. D., & Koohmaraie, M. (2004). Variation in palatability and biochemical traits within and among eleven beef muscles. Journal of Animal Science, 82, 534–550. Shackelford, S. D., Morgan, J. B., Cross, H. R., & Savell, J. W. (1991). Identification of threshold levels for Warner–Bratzler shear force in beef top loin steaks. Journal of Muscle Foods, 2, 289–296. Smith, G. C., Carpenter, Z. L., Cross, H. R., Murphey, C. E., Abraham, H. C., Savell, J. W., Davis, G. W., Berry, B. W., & Parrish, F. C., Jr. (1985). Relationship of USDA marbling groups to palatability of cooked beef. Journal of Food Quality, 7, 289–308. Thompson, J. M. (2004). The effects of marbling on flavour and juiciness scores of cooked beef, after adjusting to a constant tenderness. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 44, 645–652. Umberger, W. J., Feuz, D.M., Calkins, C. R., & Killinger, K. M. (2000). The value of beef flavor: Consumer willingness-to-pay for marbling in beef steaks. Paper presented at the Western Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meetings, Vancouver, British Columbia (Retrieved from http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/36397/1/sp00um01. pdf). U.S. Census Bureau (2012). 2012 Statistical Abstract. http://www.census.gov/compendia/ statab/ (Accessed December 12, 2013) USDA (1997). United States standards for grades of carcass beef. In A.M. Service (Ed.), Washington, DC.: United States Department of Agriculture. Von Seggern, D.D., Calking, C. R., Johnson, D.D., Brickler, J. E., & Gwartney, B.L. (2005). Muscle profiling: Characterizing the muscles of the beef chuck and round. Meat Science, 71, 39–51.