Consumer selection of constant-weight ribeye, top loin, and sirloin steaks

Meat Science 87 (2011) 66–72

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Meat Science j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / m e a t s c i

Consumer selection of constant-weight ribeye, top loin, and sirloin steaks C.M. Leick a, J.M. Behrends a,⁎, T.B. Schmidt b, M.W. Schilling a a b

Department of Food Science, Nutrition, and Health Promotion, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, United States Department of Animal and Dairy Science, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, MS, United States

a r t i c l e

i n f o

Article history: Received 20 April 2010 Received in revised form 30 August 2010 Accepted 1 September 2010 Keywords: Beef Consumer preference Retail Steak Thickness

a b s t r a c t Constant-weight ribeye, top loin, and sirloin steaks were collected from beef carcasses (n = 25) representing five weight/loin muscle area (LMA) groups: G1 (226.8–271.7 kg; 70.97–78.96 cm2), G2 (272.2–317.1 kg; 78.71–85.81 cm2), G3 (317.5–362.4 kg; 86.45–93.55 cm2), G4 (362.9–407.8 kg; 800 cwt, 94.19–101.29 cm2), and G5 (408.2–453.1 kg; 101.94–109.03 cm2). Consumers (n = 316) selected 3 steaks of each type and ranked selection criteria (color, marbling, thickness, texture). Consumers selected ribeye steaks from G5 most frequently (P = 0.0002), but there were no differences among HCW/LMA groups for top loin or sirloin steaks. Thickness was the primary criterion for sirloins and top loins, but marbling was the primary criterion for ribeyes. Data indicate that consumers have preferences for steak thickness and appearance, but the preferred characteristics differ among consumers. Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of The American Meat Science Association.

1. Introduction There is currently great variability in beef hot carcass weight (HCW) and longissimus muscle area (LMA). In 1995, the National Beef Quality Audit determined that the average LMA was 83 cm2, with a range of 39 to 128 cm2 for the carcasses that were surveyed (Boleman et al., 1998). The 2000 National Beef Quality Audit reported that average LMA was 85 cm2, with a range of 50 to 150 cm2 for the cattle surveyed (McKenna et al., 2002). Again in 2005, the National Beef Quality Audit (Garcia et al., 2008) reported a broad range of LMA in over 9000 beef carcasses across the United States, with a LMA range of 45 to 158 cm2, and a mean of 86 cm2. With these broad ranges in LMA reported in recent years, it has become increasingly difficult to ensure consistency in retail and foodservice beef products, particularly steaks from the rib and loin primals, which generally are of greatest value. With varying steak sizes come differences in retail appearance, cooking times, and plate coverage. Variation in appearance could lead to discrimination by consumers, since appearance is often the only attribute used by consumers to make a decision to purchase or consume (Meilgaard, Civille, & Carr, 2007). For foodservice, Dunn, Williams, Tatum, Bertrand, and Pringle (2000) identified the LMA range of 77 to 97 cm2 as optimal for tenderness and cooking time. In a retail setting, Sweeter, Wulf, and Maddock (2005) were unable to identify an optimum LMA, but reported a noticeable willingness among consumer panelists to pay $1.50/kg more for larger ribeye steaks (105 to 119 cm2) than smaller ones (b90 cm2).

⁎ Corresponding author. 945 Stone Blvd., Box 9805, Mississippi State, MS 39759, United States. Tel.: +1 662 325 3200; fax: +1 662 325 8728. E-mail address: [email protected] (J.M. Behrends).

Portion control in the fabrication of beef retail cuts is often dictated by product size or thickness. In food service, the institutional purchasing of beef cuts is more directly the result of product weight. Thus, heavier subprimals could be cut more thinly than lighter weight subprimals in order to fulfill product weight requirements for foodservice, leading to disparity in cooking times and plate coverage among steaks from various carcass weights. However, in a retail setting, larger longissimus cuts may be cut to a similar thickness as smaller longissimus cuts to prevent excessive thinness of larger steaks and to facilitate preparation to desired doneness by consumers. This may lead to differences in individual steak weights, as well as discrimination by consumers due to the differences in surface area, weight, or price of the products. With this in mind, the objectives of this study were to determine consumer acceptance of ribeye, top loin and top sirloin steaks from varying HCW when cut to a constant steak weight, and to determine carcass selection criteria based on LMA and HCW to achieve optimum consumer acceptance of ribeye, top loin, and top sirloin steaks. 2. Materials and methods 2.1. Carcass selection and subprimal collection Mississippi State University personnel identified beef carcasses (n =25) at a commercial abattoir. All carcasses were A maturity in both lean and skeletal maturity scores, exhibited Small00 to Small100 in marbling score as determined by experienced Mississippi State University personnel, had a carcass USDA yield grade of 1 or 2, and fit the following HCW and LMA restrictions for each group: Group 1 (G1) — 226 to 271 kg/70.9–78.1 cm2; Group 2 (G2) — 272 to 316 kg/78.7–85.8 cm2;

0309-1740/$ – see front matter. Published by Elsevier Ltd. on behalf of The American Meat Science Association. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.09.004

C.M. Leick et al. / Meat Science 87 (2011) 66–72

67

Group 3 (G3) — 317 to 361 kg/86.5–93.5 cm2; Group 4 (G4) — 362 to 407 kg/94.2–101.3 cm2; Group 5 (G5) — 408 to 452 kg/101.9–109.3 cm2. Carcass grade evaluations were determined according to United States Standards for Grades of Carcass Beef (USDA, 1997). Carcass lean maturity score, marbling score, and LMA as measured with a grid were all evaluated at the location of the 12th rib. Loin, boneless (m. longissimus thoracis, IMPS Item No. 180; n =25), beef loin, top sirloin butt, boneless (m. gluteus medius, IMPS Item No. 184B; n =25), and beef rib, ribeye roll (m. longissimus thoracis, IMPS Item No. 112; n = 25) were collected from each carcass after processing at the abattoir (USDA, 2010). Each subprimal was marked with an individual number that corresponded to the individual subprimal and the carcass from which it was removed, vacuum packaged, and stored at refrigeration temperature (b4 °C) for 14 d.

(n= 5 per HCW/LMA group). The response was measured as the total number of steaks selected by consumers within each replication; total number of steaks was then converted to percentages for the tables, since this is more meaningful. Differences among treatments were determined using the Means statement in Proc GLM of SAS (SAS Version 9.2; SAS Inst. Inc. Cary, NC) with Fisher's protected LSD test. Average steak thicknesses, consumer demographic percentages, and percentages of consumers who selected each type of steak were calculated using Microsoft Excel (Microsoft Office 2003). In order to better characterize and describe consumers within demographic groups who selected steaks from a particular group, Microsoft Excel was also used to calculate the percentage of consumers who ranked certain traits as most important when selecting a steak.

2.2. Subprimal processing and steak packaging

3. Results and discussion

All subprimals were transported to a commercial processing facility that specializes in processing subprimals for foodservice into constant-weight portion steaks. Each subprimal was trimmed by hand according to standard practices for the facility, then cut on an automated portioning machine (model IPM-030X600; Marel Food Systems Inc., Lenexa, KS) into individual steaks weighing 345.9 ± 0.7 g for ribeye and top loin steaks and 286.3 ± 0.5 g each for top sirloin steaks. Steaks were labeled according to individual subprimal ID, vacuum packaged, and transported at b4 °C to the Mississippi State University Meat Laboratory for further packaging and consumer preference analysis testing. Prior to each consumer testing day, steaks were removed from the vacuum packages, weighed, and placed in individual Styrofoam trays with a soaker pad. Each steak was measured with a ruler at the thickest point along the outside edge of the steak, then overwrapped with PVC film and labeled with a random 3-digit number.

Table 1 displays the carcass characteristics and average thickness of steaks from each group. As expected, steak thickness decreased as HCW and REA increased, for all steak types. Consumer demographic information is presented in Table 2. Due to the random recruitment of consumer panelists, some demographic groups were more heavily represented than others. In particular, the greatest percentage of consumers represented either the b$20,000 and $60,000+ income groups. This may have been due to the fact that consumer recruitment took place on a college campus prior to a football game, and many of the participants were either students who tend to have less income or recent college graduates who tend to have greater income. Most of the age groups and the frequency of beef consumption groups were evenly represented, except for the “never consume beef” group (Table 2). Over two-thirds of the consumers participating in the study were male (Table 2), which may have been due to a greater number of males attending the football game on the day of consumer testing; moreover, it was observed by recruiters that males tended to be more willing to participate in the consumer testing than females, though no numerical data on this was collected. Although females are more often responsible for household food purchase decisions, meat is more often considered a masculine food (Sobal, 2005) and thus may have enticed more males to participate in this study. Table 3 depicts the percentage of ribeye, sirloin, and top loin steaks selected from each HCW/LMA group, across all demographic groups. For ribeye steaks, the greatest percentage of steaks were selected from G5, and the least percentage of steaks were selected from G1 (P = 0.0002; Table 3). For both sirloin and top loin steaks, there were no differences (P N 0.10) among HCW/LMA groups with respect to percentage of steaks chosen from each group. These differences will be discussed, both overall and within demographic groups for each steak type.

2.3. Consumer selection testing Consumers (n = 316) in the Starkville, Mississippi area were recruited randomly from people picnicking and tailgating prior to college football games on two different days. Consumers were invited to participate in the study and asked to fill out a demographic form prior to testing. On each day, the testing location was located near where consumers were picnicking, and steaks were randomly placed on tables prior to consumer evaluation. Two random steaks from each subprimal were used in order to equally represent each of the five carcass weight groups. A separate table was used for each steak type (ribeye, top loin, and sirloin). Consumers were informed that all steaks weighed the same, given a survey form, and were asked write down the ID numbers of the 3 steaks of each type (ribeye, top loin, and sirloin) they would be most likely to purchase in a retail store. The testing area was set up so that consumers would select 3 ribeye steaks, then moved on to select 3 sirloin steaks, then 3 top loin steaks. After writing down the ID number of each steak, consumers were asked to rank the following criteria: marbling, color, thickness, texture, and other, in order of importance (1–5; 1 = most important, 5 = least important) as to how each criterion affected selection of that steak. Consumers also had the opportunity to provide additional comments related to their selection choices.

Table 1 Means of carcass characteristics according to group. G1 2

G3 d

G4 c

G5 b

SEM P-value a

73.3 83.4 93.5 101.0 114.1 Ribeye area, cm Hot carcass wt., kg 265.2e 306.5d 344.9c 381.6b 434.5a a b Ribeye steak thickness, cm 3.8 2.8 2.8b 2.5c 2.1c Sirloin steak thickness, cm 3.8a 3.5a 3.0b 2.8b 2.2c Top loin steak 3.5a 2.8b 2.7b 2.3c 2.3c thickness, cm

2.4. Statistical analysis Illegible or incomplete consumer responses were omitted from the data set. The data were analyzed as a completely randomized design, using analysis of variance with GLM procedures of SAS (SAS Version 9.2; SAS Inst. Inc. Cary, NC). The model included the fixed effects of HCW/ LMA group, both overall for each steak type and within each consumer demographic group for each steak type. The replication was carcass

G2 e

abc

1.30 4.73 0.09 0.13 0.11

b0.0001 b0.0001 b0.0001 b0.0001 b0.0001

Means in the same row lacking the same superscript are different (P b 0.05). Carcasses (n = 5 per group) were selected from a commercial abattoir to fit the following HCW and LMA criteria: G1, 226.8–271.7 kg, 70.97–78.06 cm2; G2, 272.2– 317.1 kg, 78.71–85.81 cm2; G3, 317.5–362.4 kg, 86.45–93.55 cm2; G4, 362.9–407.8 kg, 94.19–101.29 cm2; and G5, 408.2–453.1 kg, 101.94–109.03 cm2, and fabricated into steaks weighing 336 g for ribeyes and top loins and 284 g for sirloins. 1

68

C.M. Leick et al. / Meat Science 87 (2011) 66–72

Table 2 Percentage of total consumers representing each demographic group. Income

Gender

Age

Frequency of beef consumption

Group

Percentage

Group

Percentage

Group

Percentage

Group

Percentage

b$20,000 $20,000–$29,000 $30,000–$39,000 $40,000–$49,000 $50,000–$59,000 $60,000+

27.7 3.9 4.2 7.4 6.4 50.5

Male Female

67.4 32.6

b 20 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60+

9.2 33.0 13.3 16.8 17.5 10.2

Never 1 time/week 2 times/week 3 times/week 4 times/week 5+ times/week

1.0 10.3 24.0 34.0 16.7 14.1

3.1. Ribeye steak selection: Consumer preference and preference by demographic group The greatest percentage of consumers (26.7%) selected ribeye steaks from G5, while the least percentage (14.1%) selected ribeye steaks from G1 (P = 0.0002; Table 3). Thinner steaks such as those in G5 may have appeared to have a greater surface area, and thus appear to be larger to the consumer as compared to thicker steaks such as those in G1, even though consumers were told that all steaks weighed the same. It is also possible that consumers perceived ribeye steaks from G1 as too thick, as steaks in this group were about 1.7 cm thicker than ribeye steaks in G5 (Table 1). In previous research, consumers selected more ribeye steaks with a larger Longissimus muscle size, and selected them sooner than ribeye steaks with a smaller Longissimus muscle size (Sweeter et al., 2005); however, the steaks were cut to a constant thickness. In the current study, although consumer selected the greatest percentage of ribeye steaks from G5 (P = 0.0002; Table 3), the greatest percentage of consumers (36.6%) ranked marbling as their most important selection criteria, and only 26.9% ranked steak thickness as their most important criteria (Table 4). Interestingly, the same results did not occur for the two other steak types that were evaluated (Table 3), and to the authors' knowledge, there is limited research available regarding consumers' selection of sirloin and strip steaks in retail settings. Across all income groups (Table 5), the lowest percentage of consumers selected ribeye steaks from G1, which had the thickest steaks (3.8 cm). The b$20,000 income group most frequently (P = 0.0137) chose steaks from G4 and G5 (2.5 cm and 2.1 cm thick, respectively), and the $30,000–$39,000 income group most frequently chose steaks from G5 (P = 0.0802; 2.1 cm thick). There were no differences (P N 0.10) in ribeye steak selections among the other income groups. HCW/LMA group affected ribeye steak selection for male consumers (P = 0.0137; Table 6). Male consumers selected ribeye steaks from G1 (3.8 cm thick) least often (9.8%), and steaks from G4 and G5 (28.0%, 2.5 cm thick, and 27.6%, 2.1 cm thick, respectively) most often. Females also selected ribeye steaks from G4 and G5 more often than steaks from G1, G2, and G3; however, these results were not

Table 3 Distribution of consumers' steak selections among carcass criteria (HCW/LMA) groups1,2.

Ribeye Sirloin Top loin

Total Steaks

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

SEM

P-value

893 918 882

14.1c 19.6 20.5

19.0bc 18.7 18.6

17.9bc 24.7 23.1

22.3b 18.1 25.2

26.7a 18.9 12.6

2.32 4.16 3.76

0.0002 0.7799 0.6281

statistically different (P N 0.10). Interestingly, both males and females who selected steaks from G5 ranked thickness as their primary selection factor least often (22.0% for males, 15.4% for females), but ranked marbling as their primary selection factor most often (35.2% for males, 46.2% for females), suggesting that these consumers were not necessarily selecting these steaks because they were the thinnest, but due to other visual characteristics. Males who selected steaks from G1 ranked thickness as their primary selection factor most often (41.7%), while females who selected ribeyes from G1 ranked marbling as their primary selection factor with a greater frequency (39.0%). Across all age groups (Table 7), consumers selected ribeye steaks from G5 (2.1 cm thick) most often. The b20 age group selected the thinnest ribeye steaks (2.1 cm thick; G5) more frequently than any of the other HCW/LMA groups (P = 0.0055). There were no differences (P N 0.10) among steaks selected for any of the other age groups. The 60+ age group, however, selected a greater percentage of steaks from G1 than any other age range (Table 7). This may have been due to a decreased surface area of the steaks in G1, which would make them appear smaller, even though consumers were informed that all steaks were the same weight. Resurreccion (2003) summarized studies in which older consumers made smaller and more frequent ground beef purchases and had different palatability expectations and experiences for beef compared to younger consumers, which is consistent with our results for ribeye steaks. Consumers who consumed beef at least 3 times per week selected ribeye steaks from G5 more often than ribeye steaks from G1 and G3 (P = 0.0686; Table 8), which suggests that these consumers may have preferred thinner steaks. There were no differences (P N 0.10) among other beef consumption frequencies with respect to ribeye steak selection, although most groups selected the greatest percentages of steaks from G5. Overall, consumers seemed to prefer the thinnest ribeye steaks, which were from G5 (2.1 cm thick). Since only 26.9% of consumers ranked thickness as their primary selection criteria for ribeye steaks (Table 4), it is unclear whether this could be attributed to thickness of the steaks, or whether it was due to another appearance characteristic. Factors such as steak surface area (Sweeter et al., 2005), or color and marbling characteristics (Killinger, Calkins, Umberger, Feuz, & Eskridge, 2004) have been shown to influence consumers' steak selections. Resurreccion (2003), however, suggested that consumers may perceive intramuscular fat as unfavorable and contributing to an overall increase in fatness rather than positive features such as flavor or tenderness. In

Table 4 Percentage of consumers ranking each trait as the most important selection criteria for ribeye, top loin, and sirloin steaks1.

abc

Percentages in the same row lacking the same superscript are different (P b 0.05). Consumers selected 3 steaks of each type; percentages represent steaks from each group as a percentage of the total steaks selected. 2 Carcasses (n = 5 per group) were selected from a commercial abattoir to fit the following HCW and LMA criteria: G1, 226.8–271.7 kg, 70.97–78.06 cm2; G2, 272.2– 317.1 kg, 78.71–85.81 cm2; G3, 317.5–362.4 kg, 86.45–93.55 cm2; G4, 362.9–407.8 kg, 94.19–101.29 cm2; and G5, 408.2–453.1 kg, 101.94–109.03 cm2, and fabricated into steaks weighing 336 g for ribeyes and top loins and 284 g for sirloins.

Color

Marbling

Texture

Thickness

Other

23.9 24.5 27.1

36.6 29.1 28.0

9.3 0.5 10.0

26.9 32.1 33.8

2.4 2.6 1.9

1

Ribeye Sirloin Top loin 1

Consumers (n = 300) were asked to select 3 steaks of each type that they would most likely purchase in a retail store and rank their selections on color, marbling, texture, thickness, and other, where 1 = most important and 5 = least important.

C.M. Leick et al. / Meat Science 87 (2011) 66–72

69

Table 5 Influence of consumer income group on selection of ribeye, sirloin, and top loin steaks from 5 HCW/LMA groups. Type

Income range

Total steaks

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

SEM

P-value

Ribeye

b$20,000 $20,000–$29,000 $30,000–$39,000 $40,000–$49,000 $50,000–$59,000 $60,000+ b$20,000 $20,000–$29,000 $30,000–$39,000 $40,000–$49,000 $50,000–$59,000 $60,000+ b$20,000 $20,000–$29,000 $30,000–$39,000 $40,000–$49,000 $50,000–$59,000 $60,000+

246 31 38 64 59 449 249 33 37 67 60 462 246 28 38 66 54 441

9.8c 12.9 10.5b 10.9 13.6 16.9 22.9 30.3 8.1 11.9 15.0 19.9 14.6b 32.1a 18.4 27.3 22.2 22.5

14.6bc 25.8 23.7ab 14.1 22.0 20.9 14.7 12.1 16.2 17.9 10.0 13.6 18.7b 3.6b 21.1 12.1 16.7 15.7

19.9bc 16.1 13.2b 25.0 25.4 16.3 19.3 30.3 18.9 17.9 30.0 20.1 22.4ab 21.4ab 31.4 21.2 14.8 24.7

28.1a 29.0 15.8b 17.2 13.6 20.9 18.5 15.2 21.6 19.4 25.0 21.4 30.1a 35.7a 13.2 28.8 20.4 24.5

27.6ab 16.1 36.8a 32.8 25.4 24.9 24.5 12.1 35.1 32.8 20.0 24.9 14.2b 7.1b 15.8 10.6 25.9 12.7

4.68 8.03 8.47 7.53 5.10 5.08 4.45 8.63 9.11 8.45 6.88 5.83 3.62 23.82 6.42 6.63 8.86 4.53

0.0137 0.6095 0.0802 0.1074 0.1423 0.3516 0.2227 0.4067 0.1609 0.2453 0.2695 0.4244 0.0660 0.0221 0.3852 0.3092 0.7230 0.4601

Sirloin

Top loin

abc

Percentages in the same row lacking the same superscript are different (P b 0.05). Carcasses (n = 5 per group) were selected from a commercial abattoir to fit the following HCW and LMA criteria: G1, 226.8–271.7 kg, 70.97–78.06 cm2; G2, 272.2–317.1 kg, 78.71– 85.81 cm2; G3, 317.5–362.4 kg, 86.45–93.55 cm2; G4, 362.9–407.8 kg, 94.19–101.29 cm2; and G5, 408.2–453.1 kg, 101.94–109.03 cm2, and fabricated into steaks weighing 336 g for ribeyes and top loins and 284 g for sirloins. 1

the current study, marbling was the primary selection criteria for ribeye steaks for 36.6% of consumers, and color was the primary selection criteria for 23.9%, indicating that these factors had a strong impact on consumers' selection decisions for ribeye steaks. Although all carcasses used were selected to have similar color and marbling scores, there may have been variation within each subprimal that led to visual discrepancies for consumers. Furthermore, it is unclear from the data whether some consumers preferred more marbling or discriminated against it.

3.2. Sirloin steak selection: Consumer preference and preference by demographic group For sirloin steaks, there were no differences in steak selection (P = 0.7799) among HCW/LMA groups; however, the greatest percentage of consumers (24.7%) chose steaks from G3 (Table 3). This suggests that about one-fourth of consumers preferred an average thickness (about 3.0 cm) for sirloin steaks, but did not have a preference for overly thin or overly thick sirloin steaks, even though nearly one-third of consumers ranked thickness as their primary selection criteria for sirloin steaks (Table 4). There was no clear pattern in consumers' selection of sirloin steaks based on income groups (Table 5), and income group did not affect

(P N 0.10) sirloin steak selection. Consumers with the lowest annual income (b$20,000) chose sirloin steaks from G5 (2.2 cm thick) most frequently (24.5%), and sirloin steaks from G1 (3.8 cm thick) second most frequently (22.9%). Consumer in the $20,000–$29,000 income group chose sirloin steaks from G1 (3.8 cm thick) and G3 (3.0 cm thick) the greatest percentage of the time (30.3% for each). In the middle income groups ($30,000–$39,000 and $40,000–$49,000), the greatest percentage of consumers chose steaks from G5 and the least percentage of consumers chose sirloin steaks from G1. The $50,000– $59,000 income group selected sirloin steaks from G3 most frequently (30.0%), but selected steaks from G2 least often (10.0%). Consumers in the $60,000 and up income group selected sirloin steaks from G5 most often (24.9%), and selected steaks from G2 least frequently (13.6%).

Table 7 Influence of consumer age group on selection of ribeye, sirloin, and top loin steaks from 5 HCW/LMA groups.

Table 6 Influence of consumer gender on selection of ribeye, sirloin, and top loin steaks from 5 HCW/LMA groups. Type

Gender

Total steaks

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

SEM

P-value

Ribeye

Male Female Male Female Male Female

594 293 611 303 592 284

9.8c 14.0 22.9 16.2 14.6b 15.8

14.6bc 18.4 14.9 12.5 18.7b 16.9

19.9bc 16.4 19.3 22.1 22.4ab 29.9

28.0a 24.6 18.5 22.4 30.1a 21.5

27.6ab 26.6 24.5 26.7 14.2b 15.8

4.68 5.35 4.45 5.63 3.62 4.09

0.0137 0.1640 0.2227 0.1820 0.0660 0.1595

Sirloin Top loin abc

Percentages in the same row lacking the same superscript are different (P b 0.05). Carcasses (n = 5 per group) were selected from a commercial abattoir to fit the following HCW and LMA criteria: G1, 226.8–271.7 kg, 70.97–78.06 cm2; G2, 272.2– 317.1 kg, 78.71–85.81 cm2; G3, 317.5–362.4 kg, 86.45–93.55 cm2; G4, 362.9–407.8 kg, 94.19–101.29 cm2; and G5, 408.2–453.1 kg, 101.94–109.03 cm2, and fabricated into steaks weighing 336 g for ribeyes and top loins and 284 g for sirloins. 1

Type

Age range

Total steaks

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

SEM

P-value

Ribeye

b 20 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60+ b 20 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60+ b 20 20–29 30–39 40–49 50–59 60+

80 302 122 145 155 88 87 302 125 154 163 89 82 301 117 135 154 80

11.3b 11.3 17.2 12.4 16.1 21.6 26.4 20.5 17.6 16.9 19.6 21.3 14.6 20.6 20.5 15.6b 22.1 23.8

16.3b 17.9 20.5 20.7 21.9 14.8 21.8 14.2 13.6 10.4 11.0 20.2 22.0 18.9 17.9 14.1b 12.3 11.3

16.3b 19.9 14.8 19.3 15.5 19.3 9.2 24.5 26.4 20.8 19.6 11.2 17.1 22.3 20.5 26.7ab 25.3 30.0

22.5b 25.5 18.0 20.0 23.2 19.3 19.5 16.2 20.0 25.3 23.3 21.3 34.1 25.2 29.1 30.4a 21.4 21.3

33.8a 25.5 29.5 27.6 23.2 25.0 23.0 24.5 22.4 26.6 26.4 25.8 12.2 13.0 12.0 13.3ab 18.8 13.8

4.93 5.92 6.02 5.56 5.62 6.21 5.97 5.17 5.62 5.12 8.42 6.91 5.36 4.07 5.48 4.69 4.67 7.60

0.0055 0.2217 0.1666 0.1703 0.4932 0.5197 0.2305 0.2567 0.3975 0.0719 0.5484 0.4129 0.1044 0.6398 0.5030 0.0845 0.3641 0.5137

Sirloin

Top loin

abc

Percentages in the same row lacking the same superscript are different (P b 0.05). Carcasses (n = 5 per group) were selected from a commercial abattoir to fit the following HCW and LMA criteria: G1, 226.8–271.7 kg, 70.97–78.06 cm2; G2, 272.2– 317.1 kg, 78.71–85.81 cm2; G3, 317.5–362.4 kg, 86.45–93.55 cm2; G4, 362.9–407.8 kg, 94.19–101.29 cm2; and G5, 408.2–453.1 kg, 101.94–109.03 cm2, and fabricated into steaks weighing 336 g for ribeyes and top loins and 284 g for sirloins. 1

70

C.M. Leick et al. / Meat Science 87 (2011) 66–72

Table 8 Influence of consumers' frequency of beef consumption on selection of ribeye, sirloin, and top loin steaks from 5 HCW/LMA groups. Type

Beef consumption

Total steaks

G1

G2

G3

G4

G5

SEM

P-value

Ribeye

Never 1 time/week 2 times/week 3 times/week 4 times/week 5+ times/week Never 1 time/week 2 times/week 3 times/week 4 times/week 5+ times/week Never 1 time/week 2 times/week 3 times/week 4 times/week 5+ times/week

7 89 211 299 146 128 5 93 211 309 155 130 9 87 198 299 150 127

– 12.4 10.9 13.1b 20.5 14.1 – 26.9 17.5 18.4 21.0 18.5 – 24.1 18.7 17.3 23.3 23.6

– 18.0 19.0 20.7ab 17.1 18.0 – 14.0 17.1 11.3 15.5 16.9 – 10.3 19.2 22.8 20.7 7.9

– 15.7 18.0 17.0b 17.8 19.5 – 17.2 19.4 20.4 22.7 21.5 – 26.4 26.8 22.1 14.0 25.2

– 24.7 24.2 21.4ab 19.9 22.7 – 18.3 20.9 23.3 19.4 16.9 – 19.5 25.3 27.1 27.3 32.3

– 29.2 28.0 27.7a 24.7 25.8 – 23.7 25.1 26.6 21.4 26.2 – 19.5 10.1 10.7 14.7 11.0

– 7.21 6.44 4.82 5.10 5.13 – 6.05 5.17 6.90 4.24 5.92 – 6.53 4.72 3.68 5.32 5.87

– 0.2342 0.1934 0.0686 0.4346 0.2291 – 0.3750 0.3905 0.3468 0.5135 0.4020 – 0.4506 0.3047 0.1455 0.4991 0.0649

Sirloin

Top loin

abc

Percentages in the same row lacking the same superscript are different (P b 0.05). Carcasses (n = 5 per group) were selected from a commercial abattoir to fit the following HCW and LMA criteria: G1, 226.8–271.7 kg, 70.97–78.06 cm2; G2, 272.2–317.1 kg, 78.71– 85.81 cm2; G3, 317.5–362.4 kg, 86.45–93.55 cm2; G4, 362.9–407.8 kg, 94.19–101.29 cm2; and G5, 408.2–453.1 kg, 101.94–109.03 cm2, and fabricated into steaks weighing 336 g for ribeyes and top loins and 284 g for sirloins. 1

There were no differences among HCW/LMA groups with respect to sirloin steak selection based on gender (P N 0.10; Table 6). However, both male and female consumers selected sirloin steaks from G5 most frequently, and selected steaks from G2 least often. The thickest sirloin steaks in G1 were selected more often by males (22.9%) than by females (16.2%). Males also ranked thickness as their primary selection factor more often than any other factors when selecting sirloin steaks G1, G2, G3, and G4. Females, on the other hand, ranked marbling or color as their primary selection factor more frequently, except for steaks chosen from G2, in which thickness was most often ranked the primary selection factor. This suggests that while male and female consumers had similar selection patterns for sirloin steaks, the reasons for making those selections may have been different. When evaluating sirloin steak selection based on age group (Table 7), the 40–49 age group chose the thinnest steaks from G5 (2.2 cm thick) more often than the thicker steaks from G1 and G2 (P = 0.0719; 3.8 cm and 3.5 cm thick, respectively). While there was no other effect of age on consumers' selection of sirloin steaks (P N 0.10), it appeared that the youngest (b20) and the oldest consumers (60+) chose steaks from G3 about half as often as they selected steaks from any of the other HCW/LMA groups (Table 7). This suggests that most consumers in these two age groups had a preference for either thicker (G1 and G2) or thinner (G4 and G5) sirloin steaks. Frequency of consumers' beef consumption did not affect their selection of sirloin steaks based on HCW/LMA group (P N 0.10). It appeared, though, that consumers who consumed beef 2, 3, or 5+ times per week selected sirloin steaks from G5 more often (Table 8). Also, sirloin steaks in G2 were selected the least often by all beef consumption consumer groups. Sirloin steaks from G2 were similar in thickness to those from G1 (Table 1), so marbling or color may have been the reason consumers chose G2 sirloin steaks less often. There were few discernable patterns in sirloin steak selection among various demographic groups, suggesting that consumers may not be as able to evaluate differences in the sirloin steaks they select compared to ribeye steaks, or their preferences for sirloin steaks that were driven by factors other than those identified. However, thickness was the primary selection criteria for sirloin steaks for the greatest percentage of consumers (32.1%; Table 4), indicating that there was a steak thickness suited to every consumer, as was suggested for ribeye steaks by Sweeter et al., 2005. Marbling (29.1%) and color (24.5%) were ranked as the most important selection criteria for a large number of consumers, too. Such variation in

primary selection criteria, along with the fact that there were no clear patterns in selection by HCW/LMA group, strengthens the possibility that there is a sirloin steak to suit every consumer's specifications, even if those specifications vary greatly. In other studies, factors such as perception of origin and tenderness have been shown to have a greater impact on consumers' selection of longissimus steaks (Dransfield, Zamora, & Bayle, 1998), as well as shape and size of steaks derived from other beef muscles (Kukowski, Maddock, Wulf, Fausti, & Taylor, 2005), and marbling and color in top loin and ribeye steaks (Killinger et al., 2004). Greater flexibility in use of sirloin steaks compared to ribeye or top loin steaks may have also led to the lack of consistency in sirloin steak selection. Sirloin steak is often called for in recipes such as stir-fry, Stroganoff, or kebabs; consumer may be less selective about steak appearance if the steak is to be cut up in the home to use in various recipes. 3.3. Top loin steak selection: Consumer preference and preference by demographic group The greatest percentage of consumers (25.2%) chose top loin steaks from G4, and the least percentage (14.1%) chose steaks from G5, even though thickness of top loin steaks from G4 and G5 were not different from each other (P N 0.05; 2.3 cm thick). Even though thickness was the primary selection criteria for top loin steaks for the greatest percentage of consumers (Table 4; 32.1%), it is clear that a portion of these consumers preferred thinner steaks, whereas others preferred thicker steaks. Other characteristics may have distinguished top loin steaks in G4 and G5 for consumers, such as marbling or color, each of which was ranked as the primary selection criteria by over 27% of consumers for top loin steaks. When evaluating top loin steak selection based on income (Table 5), consumers in the b $20,000 income group selected top loin steaks from G4 (2.3 cm thick) more often than top loin steaks from G1, G2, and G5 (3.5 cm, 2.8 cm, and 2.3 cm thick, respectively). Consumers in the $20,000–$29,000 income group selected top loin steaks G1 and G4 more often (P = 0.0221) than top loin steaks from G2 and G5. There were no differences among HCW/LMA groups with respect to top loin steak selection among the other income groups, and it did not appear that there was a clear selection pattern for consumers in these groups (Table 5). HCW/LMA group affected top loin steak selection for male consumers (Table 6), such that male consumers selected top loin

C.M. Leick et al. / Meat Science 87 (2011) 66–72

steaks from G4 more often than top loin steaks from G1, G2, or G5 (P = 0.0660). Males chose top loin steaks from G5 least often (14.2%), even though they were the same thickness as steaks from G4, which they chose most often (30.1%). Females chose top loin steaks from G3 (2.7 cm thick) most often (29.9%), and top loin steaks from G1 and G2 least often (15.8% and 16.9%, respectively), although these percentages were not different (P = 0.1595). Males ranked thickness as their primary selection factor most often for all HCW/LMA groups, except G3, in which marbling was the primary selection factor. This could indicate that top loin steak thickness was important to most male consumers, although there was not a common thickness preferred for males. Females who selected top loin steaks from G1 ranked thickness as their primary selection factor most often (54.4%), but females who selected steaks from all other HCW/LMA groups ranked color or marbling as their primary selection factor more often. This suggests that some females preferred thicker top loin steaks, but those who did not choose the thickest steaks were more likely to base their selections on color or marbling. When consumers were sorted by age (Table 7), consumers in the 40– 49 age group selected top loin steaks from G4 (30.4%; 2.3 cm thick) more often than top loin steaks from G1 and G2 (P = 0.0845; 3.5 cm and 2.8 cm thick, respectively). Again, thicknesses of steaks from G4 and G5 were the same. Age did not affect (P N 0.10) top loin selection in the other age groups; however, the two oldest age groups (50–59 and 60+) selected top loin steaks from G3 most often, and top loin steaks from G2 least often, even though average thickness of steaks in the two groups was not different (P N 0.05; Table 1). Moreover, consumers in the two oldest groups also selected the thickest steaks (3.5 cm thick; G1) a greater percentage of the time than consumers in the younger age groups. A similar pattern was observed for ribeye steaks, and again may have been due to a decreased surface area of the steaks in G1, which would make them appear smaller. Frequency of beef consumption (Table 8) did not affect consumers' selection of top loin steaks (P N 0.10), although it appeared that consumers who ate beef more frequently (3, 4, or 5+ times per week) selected top loin steaks from G4 most often. Consumers who ate beef 2 or 3 times per week selected top loin steaks from G5 least often (10.1% and 10.7%, respectively). Overall, more than one-third of consumers selected top loin steaks from G4 and G5 (Table 3), which suggests that consumers may have preferred thinner top loin steaks. It is interesting, thought, that significant differences among steak selections from different HCW/LMA groups were observed for ribeye steaks but not for top loin steaks, particularly since ribeye steaks tend to be more inconsistent in appearance than top loin steaks. Ribeye and top loin steaks are often of similar price, which would suggest that similar criteria would be used in making purchase decisions for these types of steaks, but consumer selection data collected in the current study did not reflect this. Thickness was ranked as the primary selection criteria for top loin steaks by 33.8% of consumers (Table 4), indicating that top loin steak thickness was important, but consumers seemed to prefer thinner steaks. Another possibility is that the thinner steaks had a greater surface area, which may have increased consumer appeal of top loin steaks from G4 and G5 compared to the other HCW/LMA groups, even though consumers were informed that all steaks were of equal weight. Color and marbling (Killinger et al., 2004), as well as tenderness (Platter et al., 2005) have also been shown to affect consumers' selection of top loin steaks. In the current study, marbling (28.0%) and color (27.1%) were also the primary selection criteria for over one-fourth of consumers, suggesting that consumers perceived differences in these characteristics even though carcasses were selected to be similar for marbling and color. One possible explanation may have been inherent marbling variation within the Longissimus muscle, since differences in marbling amounts and distribution have been shown to occur (Blumer, Craig, Pierce, Smart, & Wise, 1962). Thus, even though carcasses were selected to have the same marbling

71

score at the 12th rib, variation in marbling likely occurred throughout the Longissimus, leading to differences in marbling among steaks. 3.4. Consumer selection across all steak types and application to the beef industry Consumers showed a preference for thinner ribeye and top loin steaks, but preferred sirloin steaks of average thickness. This may have been due to the perceived larger size of the ribeye and top loin steaks, particularly since these cuts are generally more expensive than sirloin steaks. There is some disparity, however, in the percentage of consumers selecting thin steaks from the heavier HCW/LMA groups, and the percentage of carcasses which actually fit the criteria. In the current study, over 25% of the ribeye steaks selected were from G5, but in the 2005 National Beef Quality Audit (Garcia et al., 2008), only 4.2% of beef carcasses evaluated were within that weight range (408– 453 kg). Similarly, greater than 20% of top loin steaks selected in the current study were from the 500 cwt group, but only 0.4% of carcasses evaluated by Garcia et al. (2008) were within this weight range. This suggests that further evaluation of consumer preferences, along with targeted LMA and HCW in the beef industry may improve efficiency of beef production and marketing. Thickness was the most important selection criteria for the greatest percentage of consumers in selecting sirloin and top loin steaks, and for the second highest percentage of consumers in selecting ribeye steaks. The data suggest that while many consumers have a preference for steak thickness, all consumers' thickness preferences are not the same. Therefore, based on the data, there is a potential market for steaks of all thicknesses and sizes. Marbling and color were also important characteristics in consumers' steak selections; although carcasses were selected to have similar color and marbling, consumers perceived differences in these characteristics which influenced their steak selections. Some consumers may have favored steaks with more marbling, while others may have discriminated against greater amounts of marbling since it may have made the steak appear too fatty. Consumers' intended cooking and serving methods of the steaks, as well as perceived value of different steak types, may have also affected their selection decisions, although this information was not collected. Further studies should investigate consumers' intended cooking methods, perceived value, and other factors which may influence consumer selection of steaks in a retail setting. Also, it should be noted that the majority of consumers who participated in the current research were male, but females are more often the primary shoppers for the household. Males seemed to be more interested in participating in the study and more interested in selecting meat products than females in the conditions of this study. While the consumer gender demographics were somewhat different from expected, we were able to capture a population that was more interested in selecting and purchasing meat products. By understanding consumer preferences, the beef industry can improve sorting and marketing of both retail case-ready and foodservice steaks to obtain optimal prices for these products. 4. Conclusion Results of the current study indicate that most consumers have a preference for thickness, marbling, and color when selecting steaks in a retail situation, but the desired thickness, marbling level, and color are not the same for all consumers. This suggests that there is a potential market for all sizes and types of ribeye, sirloin, and top loin steaks. However, certain steak sizes, particularly those from lighter carcass weights, may be underrepresented in the beef industry. Understanding consumer preferences may help improve sorting and marketing of beef carcasses to optimize efficiency and profitability in the beef industry.

72

C.M. Leick et al. / Meat Science 87 (2011) 66–72

Acknowledgements This project was funded in part by The Beef Checkoff from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association on behalf of the Cattlemen's Beef Board. Approved for publication as Journal Article Number J-11784 of the Mississippi Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station under project MIS-501131. References Blumer, T. N., Craig, H. B., Pierce, E. A., Smart, W. W. G., & Wise, M. B. (1962). Nature and variability of marbling deposits in longissimus dorsi muscle of beef carcasses. Journal of Animal Science, 21, 935−942. Boleman, S. L., Boleman, S. J., Morgan, W. W., Hale, D. S., Griffin, D. B., Savell, J. W., et al. (1998). National beef quality audit-1995: Survey of producer-related defects and carcass quality and quantity attributes. Journal of Animal Science, 76, 96−103. Dransfield, E., Zamora, F., & Bayle, M. C. (1998). Consumer selection of steaks as influenced by information and price index. Food Quality and Preference, 9, 321−326. Dunn, J. L., Williams, S. E., Tatum, J. D., Bertrand, J. K., & Pringle, T. D. (2000). Identification of optimal ranges in ribeye area for portion cutting of beef steaks. Journal of Animal Science, 78, 966−975. Garcia, L. G., Nicholson, K. L., Hoffman, T. W., Lawrence, T. E., Hale, D. S., Griffin, D. B., et al. (2008). National Beef Quality Audit-2005: Survey of targeted cattle and

carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. Journal of Animal Science, 86, 3533−3543. Killinger, K. M., Calkins, C. R., Umberger, W. J., Feuz, D. M., & Eskridge, K. M. (2004). Consumer visual preference and value for beef steaks differing in marbling level and color. Journal of Animal Science, 82, 3288−3293. Kukowski, A. C., Maddock, R. J., Wulf, D. M., Fausti, S. W., & Taylor, G. L. (2005). Evaluating consumer acceptability and willingness to pay for various beef chuck muscles. Journal of Animal Science, 83, 2605−2610. McKenna, D. R., Roebert, D. L., Bates, P. K., Schmidt, T. B., Hale, D. S., Griffin, D. B., et al. (2002). National Beef Quality Audit-2000: Survey of targeted cattle and carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. Journal of Animal Science, 80, 1212−1222. Meilgaard, M. C., Civille, G. V., & Carr, B. T. (2007). Sensory evaluation techniques, 4th Ed. Boca Raton, Forida: Taylor & Francis Group, LLC. Platter, W. J., Tatum, J. D., Belk, K. E., Koontz, S. R., Chapman, P. L., & Smith, G. C. (2005). Effects of marbling and shear force on consumers' willingness to pay for beef strip loin steaks. Journal of Animal Science, 83, 890−899. Resurreccion, A. V. A. (2003). Sensory aspects of consumer choices for meat and meat products. Meat Science, 66, 11−20. Sobal, J. (2005). Men, meat, and marriage: Models of masculinity. Food & Foodways, 13, 135−158. Sweeter, K. K., Wulf, D. M., & Maddock, R. J. (2005). Determining the optimum beef longissimus muscle size for retail consumers. Journal of Animal Science, 83, 2598−2604. USDA (2010). Institutional meat purchasing specifications (IMPS).March: Agricultural Marketing Service 2010. USDA (1997). United States standards for grades of carcass beef. Agricultural Marketing Service, Livestock and Seed Division. [January 1997].