Post-mortem mechanical injection of low quality beef loins with pork back fat improves palatability and sensory attributes

    Post-mortem mechanical injection of low quality beef loins with pork back fat improves palatability and sensory attributes DeMetris D. Reed Jr., Lee-Anne J. Walter, Angela N. Schmitz, Daniel E. Guadi´an-Garc´ıa, Ty E. Lawrence PII: DOI: Reference:

S0309-1740(16)30347-3 doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.10.002 MESC 7107

To appear in:

Meat Science

Received date: Revised date: Accepted date:

24 March 2016 10 August 2016 4 October 2016

Please cite this article as: Reed, D.M.D. Jr., Walter, L.-A.J., Schmitz, A.N., Guadi´ anGarc´ıa, D.E. & Lawrence, T.E., Post-mortem mechanical injection of low quality beef loins with pork back fat improves palatability and sensory attributes, Meat Science (2016), doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.10.002

This is a PDF file of an unedited manuscript that has been accepted for publication. As a service to our customers we are providing this early version of the manuscript. The manuscript will undergo copyediting, typesetting, and review of the resulting proof before it is published in its final form. Please note that during the production process errors may be discovered which could affect the content, and all legal disclaimers that apply to the journal pertain.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT

POST-MORTEM MECHANICAL INJECTION OF LOW QUALITY BEEF LOINS WITH PORK BACK FAT IMPROVES PALATABILITY AND SENSORY ATTRIBUTES

DeMetris D. Reed, Jr. a

RI

Lee-Anne J. Walter a

SC

Angela N. Schmitz a

NU

Daniel E. Guadián-García a

MA

Ty E. Lawrence a

West Texas A&M University, 2501 4th Avenue Canyon, TX 79016

AC CE P

a

TE

D

Corresponding author- Ty Lawrence, [email protected]

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Abstract Palatability attributes of beef striploin steaks mechanically enhanced with pork fat

PT

were evaluated. Striploins were collected from USDA Standard steer carcasses,

RI

longitudinally cut into halves (lateral or medial) and assigned randomly to pork fat

SC

injection (PFI) or non-injected control (CON). Loin halves assigned to PFI were enhanced with pork fat using a multi-needle injector. Steaks were analyzed via Warner-

NU

Bratzler shear force, trained and consumer sensory panels, and proximate analysis

MA

(cooked and uncooked). Shear force values for PFI steaks were lower (P<0.01) than CON steaks (24.5 vs. 43.5 N, respectively). Trained panelists detected (P=0.02) an off-flavor

D

for PFI steaks but were unable to discern other attribute differences. Consumer panelists

TE

denoted (P=0.05) improved juiciness and overall preference (P=0.02) for the PFI treatment. Cooked PFI steaks had less (P<0.01; -1.0%) moisture and more (P<0.01;

AC CE P

+1.3%) fat than CON steaks; protein did not differ (P=0.14). This processing method deserves further investigation for new product development.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT

Highlights

Injection of pork fat decreased moisture and increased cooking losses.

•

Injection of pork fat improved objective tenderness.

•

Injection of pork fat improved consumer panel juiciness and overall preference.



Trained panelists detected an off-flavour, but no other sensory differences.

AC CE P

Keywords

TE

D

MA

NU

SC

RI

•

Beef; Consumer; Fat; Pork; Sensory; WBSF

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 1.

Introduction

Meat palatability can primarily be attributed to the three essential tasting qualities of

PT

tenderness, flavor, and juiciness. Approximately 47% of 1,090 consumers surveyed

RI

ranked tenderness as the most important trait when purchasing meat, 44% ranked flavor

SC

as the most important trait, and juiciness was ranked first by only 9% (Chichester, 2009). For some consumers, premium cuts of meat that are considered more tender, juicier, or

NU

flavorful (e.g. tenderloin, ribeye, etc.) may be financially unattainable. For the past 30

MA

years, innovations improving the tenderness of meats and using inexpensive additives have been on the forefront of research.

D

French chefs have used larding needles to insert lard into meat using a hollowed handle

TE

or tube (Gisslen, 2003). The method of lardoire uses a metal blade-like pen-point

AC CE P

instrument and the cook attaches fat to a hollow clip and forces the fat in, as though you were sewing fat into the meat (Child, Bertholle, & Beck, 1983). A technique to improve tenderness using the principle of French larding by injecting liquid edible beef fat into beef carcasses was reported by Durham, Elliott, & Zinn (1961). Post-mortem injection of beef fat into beef subprimals has been recently shown to improve tenderness and sensory attributes (Holmes, Montgomery, & Lawrence, 2013). Pork is known to add a desirable flavor to other meats, such as beef, which may improve palatability and increase the euphoria that is associated with the combination of beef and pork. The objective of this experiment was to examine the palatability attributes of low quality beef striploin steaks mechanically enhanced with pork subcutaneous fat.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2. Materials and Methods

PT

2.1 Muscles Beef striploin subprimals (IMPS 180; 5.8 ± 0.8 kg; n = 40) from USDA Standard steer

RI

carcasses (one loin per carcass) were collected from the fabrication line of a commercial

SC

beef processor (Tyson Fresh Meats; USDA Establishment 245E), vacuumed packaged,

NU

transported to the West Texas A&M University meat laboratory and stored at 2° C until 14 d post-mortem. Carcass data including 12th rib subcutaneous fat, longissimus dorsi

MA

muscle area, hot carcass weight, estimated yield grade, and marbling score were collected by an E + V Vision grading camera.

TE

D

2.2 Fabrication

AC CE P

At 14 d post-mortem, lateral and medial halves of the 40 loins were assigned randomly to pork fat injection (PFI) treatment or to a non-injected control (CON). Subcutaneous fat was trimmed to the epimysial connective tissue of each loin using a mechanical knife (Whizard Knife Series II, 1000M2, Bettcher Industries, Inc. Vermilion, OH, USA). After fat removal, the vein portion (containing the gluteus medius and longissimus lumborum muscles) of each loin was removed and loins were longitudinally cut into halves (denoted lateral or medial). A green weight (kg) was recorded for each control and treated half. Beef loins assigned to the control treatment were processed through the injector without a liquid solution to mimic the injection action of the treated loin halves and eliminate tenderization bias from injector needle penetration, vacuum packaged (3-mil. standard barrier; 203 x 305 mm; Clarity Vacuum Pouches; Kansas City, MO) and stored in a freezer at -28.9°C.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT 2.3 Fat Processing One-hundred thirty-six kg of edible pork subcutaneous fat was purchased from a

PT

commercial pork processor (Seaboard Foods, Inc.; USDA Establishment 13597). Fat was

RI

coarse ground (1.27 cm plate hub) via a grinder (BIRO® MODELS 548SS, The Biro

SC

MFG. Co., Marblehead, Ohio, USA) and stored at 2°C for 1 d. A propane fired oil heater was used to melt and fully cook (>71°C) the fat to facilitate separation of collagen from

NU

fat. Melted fat was poured through 25.4 cm shortening filter cones (10” Filter Cones,

MA

FC-10-3, Disco Manufacturing Company, McDonough, GA, USA) to strain the solids from pure fat; solids filtered from the liquid edible pork fat were discarded. Filtered fat

D

was allowed to cool and held at 60°C using a drum belt heater (710-55-230 Heater,

AC CE P

2.4 Fat Injection

TE

55GAL STL, 230V, 1500W, Morse Manufacturing Co., Inc., East Syracuse, NY, USA).

Strip loin halves were injected with approximately 7 L of melted and fully cooked edible pork fat using a Günther Pickle Injector (Injectomatic 280/282 PI 9-21 Brine Injector, Koch Equipment, Kansas City, MO, USA) with a series of perforated needles. Loin halves were put through the machine three at a time side by side. Injected halves were allowed to cool for thirty minutes at 2°C to allow the liquid fat to solidify, weighed to obtain an injected weight for calculation of percentage lipid enhancement, vacuum packaged and stored in a freezer at -28.9°C. Fat that accumulated on the external surface of the strip loin halves was manually removed once it solidified prior to packaging. 2.5 Processing

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Once the beef loins were frozen, the control and treated halves were matched according to their identification. Beginning at the anterior end, loins were cut into 2.54 cm thick

PT

steaks (Figure 1) and were assigned, respectively: 1st and 2nd pair-Warner Bratzler Shear

RI

Force analysis, 3rd and 4th pair-Proximate analysis, 5th pair-Trained sensory panel

SC

analysis, 6th to 8th pair - Consumer analysis (Figure 2).

NU

2.6 Warner-Bratzler Shear Force Determinations

Steaks were defrosted at 2°C for 24 h, removed from vacuum pouches, patted dry with

MA

absorbent towels, and weighed to determine raw weight before being cooked in a forcedair convection oven (Blodgett, model CTB/R, G.S. Blodgett Co., Burlington, VT) set at

D

177°C. Internal temperature of each steak was monitored using copper-constantan

TE

thermocouples (Omega Engineering, Stamford, VT) positioned in the geometric center of

AC CE P

each steak and connected to a temperature monitoring device (Omega Engineering Stamford, VT); steaks were removed from the oven at 69.5°C in order to reach a target endpoint temperature of 71°C. Steaks were weighed after cooking to obtain drip and evaporative loss of each sample. Steaks were cooled on a rack for approximately 10 minutes, wrapped in cellophane and chilled for 24 h at 2°C. After chilling, six cores (1.27 cm diameter) were removed from each steak parallel to the muscle fiber orientation using a mechanical coring device. Cores were immediately sheared once through the center using a V-shaped blade on a Warner-Bratzler shear force machine (G-R Manufacturing, Manhattan, KS). Peak shear force was displayed (N) on a Mecmesin BGN-500 Force Gauge (Newton House, United Kingdom) and recorded. 2.7 Trained Sensory Evaluation

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT One hundred and sixty pairs of sample steaks (80 CON/80 PFI) were evaluated at Kansas State University by 10 trained panelists (4 female, 6 male, age 22-38) across ten panels

PT

that lasted approximately 20 minutes/panel for sensory attributes as prescribed by

RI

American Meat Science Association guidelines. Using a 1 to 8 scale panelists scored (1 = extremely tough, dry, abundant, bland, and intense; 8 = extremely tender, juicy, none,

SC

intense, and none) steaks for myofibrillar tenderness, juiciness, connective tissue amount,

NU

beef flavor intensity, overall tenderness, and off-flavour intensity. Off-flavour descriptions were recorded as: burnt oil, peanutty, burnt peanut, oxidized, livery, cow,

MA

bloody/serum, green-haylike, cow, and warmed-over flavour. Each panelist received two samples from treated and control steaks. Steaks for trained sensory panel evaluation were

TE

D

cooked using the same methods and process as reported for WBSF analysis. Each steak was labeled to their perspective loin and position. Samples were then cut into 1.27 x 1.27

AC CE P

cm x steak thickness cubes and served to trained sensory panelists. 2.8 Consumer Sensory Evaluation One hundred and forty pairs of sample steaks (70 CON / 70 PFI) were evaluated on the West Texas A&M University campus by randomly recruiting 28 untrained consumers per session (5 sessions at 60 minutes each) for sensory attributes; using a 1 to 9 scale panelists scored (9=like extremely, 8=like very much, 7=like moderately, 6=like slightly, 5=neutral, 4=dislike slightly, 3=dislike moderately, 2=dislike very much, 1=dislike extremely) samples for tenderness, flavor, juiciness, and texture. The population of sensory panelists included university faculty, staff, and students; each participant completed a consent form, a demographics questionnaire, and a palatability attributes survey. Investigators prepared and served 56 steaks per-day at a temperature of 71°C and

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT each participant completed a consent form, demographics information, and palatability attributes survey (Figure 3). Consumers were asked to score (9=like extremely, 8=like

PT

very much, 7=like moderately, 6=like slightly, 5=neutral, 4=dislike slightly, 3=dislike

RI

moderately, 2=dislike very much, 1=dislike extremely) uncooked CON and PFI steaks for visual preference. In addition, panelists were asked to provide their overall

SC

preference. Each consumer received one treated and one control steak that were adjacent

NU

(medial/lateral) from the same loin. Participants were informed upon completion of the demographics and survey they would receive a ten-dollar gift certificate redeemable at

MA

the WTAMU meat lab. Steaks for consumer sensory panel evaluation were cooked using the same methods and process as reported for WBSF analysis and trained sensory panels.

TE

D

Each steak was labeled to their respective loin and position, wrapped in foil, and transported across campus in an insulated container to a warming oven. Samples were

AC CE P

kept at temperature (71°C) in the warming oven until a consumer was ready to consume the samples. Samples were then cut into 1.27 x 1.27 cm x steak thickness cubes and served to consumer panelists. 2.9 Proximate Analysis

Beef striploin samples were trimmed of any excess fat, cut into 2.54 cm cubes, frozen in liquid nitrogen, and pulverized in a food processor (Cuisinart, East Windsor, NJ). Upon removal from the processor, 13g ± 5g samples from each steak (duplicate samples) were placed in a labeled sample bag and frozen (-18°C). Quantification of moisture, fat, and protein were performed in duplicate per procedures reported by Servi-Tech laboratories in Amarillo, Texas (Moisture, AOAC 934.01; Crude protein, AOAC 990.03; Crude fat, AOAC 2003.06). At Servi-Tech laboratories the samples were re-thawed, weighed to

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT obtain a wet weight and placed in an oven to dry for 3 h at 130°C. After removal from the oven, samples were placed into a desiccator to allow samples to cool without producing

PT

moisture. Upon removal from the desiccator, samples were weighed again to obtain a dry

RI

weight. Moisture concentration (percent) was calculated using the following formula: 100 * [sample weight - (last re-weigh - tare weight)] ÷ sample weight. Crude protein was

SC

calculated using the formula, crude protein, % (w/w) = % N * 6.25. A plug of defatted

NU

cotton was placed on top of the sample to keep it in the thimble during extraction; 70–90 mL of solvent was used. The sample was raised and suspended over the boiling solvent.

MA

During rinsing, residual traces of the extractable material were flushed out of the sample and retained in the extraction cup. The CON and PFI samples lipid concentration were

TE

D

weighed into the extraction thimbles and calculated: % Fat = (W2 – W1) ÷ (W3*100), where W1 = weight of the extraction cup; W2 = weight of the extraction cup + extract;

AC CE P

W3 = weight of the sample. 2.10 Statistical Analysis

A randomized complete block experimental design was used for the experiment; the forty beef strip loin subprimals were the blocks and individual steaks were sampling units. A one-way treatment structure was used; and the experimental unit was ½ of a striploin (medial or lateral) with treatments assigned randomly using a random number generator. The analysis was conducted using the MIXED procedure of SAS (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC) for interval scale values of WBSF and proximate analysis. The fixed effect was treatment and random effects were carcass and location (lateral or medial half). An LSMEANS statement generated means. Ordinal data were analyzed using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test (NPAR1WAY) test procedure of SAS (SAS Institute, Inc. Cary, NC). The

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT sensory analysis responses were separated by palatability attributes: tenderness, juiciness, flavor, texture, and overall acceptability. The UNIVARIATE procedure was used to

PT

obtain quartile deviations for the analysis of the trained sensory traits: myofibrillar

RI

tenderness, juiciness, beef flavor intensity, overall tenderness, and off-flavour intensity.

SC

Overall preference data were analyzed using a chi-square test via PROC FREQ in SAS.

NU

3. Results and Discussion 3.1 Carcass Measurements

MA

Loins were collected from carcasses that had marbling scores with minimum of Traces30 and a maximum of Slight80; the average camera marbling score equaled Traces90 (Table

TE

D

1). Hot carcass weight data indicated the sample population weighed 368 ± 44 kg, with a longissimus dorsi muscle area of 109 ± 10 cm2, 12th rib subcutaneous fat depth of 0.50 ±

AC CE P

0.25 cm, and average USDA calculated yield grade of 1.08 ± 0.26. All animals were <30 months old as determined by the number of incisors present at harvest. For comparison, the 2011 National Beef Quality Audit reported mean hot carcass weight at 374.0 kg, longissimus dorsi muscle area of 88.8 cm², yield grade of 2.9, marbling score of Small40, and USDA quality grade of high Select (Moore et al., 2012). 3.2 Injection and Proximate Analysis Fat injection was determined to be 12.61 % (Table 2), which is similar to previous research studies (Durham, Elliott, & Zinn, 1961; Pietrasik, Dhanda, Shand, & Pegg, 2006; Holmes, Montgomery & Lawrence, 2013) that reported fat injection ≥13%. Proximate analyses of uncooked striploins injected with pork fat revealed they had less (P < 0.01) moisture (-5.21%) and protein (-1.89%) concurrent with greater (P < 0.01) fat

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT (+7.29%) than control striploins. Proximate analysis of cooked striploins injected with pork fat revealed less (P < 0.01) moisture (-1.03%) and more fat (+1.28%) with no

PT

difference (P = 0.14) in protein content. This outcome follows the expectation previously

RI

reported by Holmes, Montgomery & Lawrence (2013) in which fat-injected steaks had the greatest intramuscular fat concomitant with less moisture content due to fat

NU

3.3 Warner-Bratzler shear force

SC

displacement of water.

MA

Warner-Bratzler shear force data (Table 2) demonstrated lower (P < 0.01) peak force values for PFI steaks as compared to the CON treatment (24.51 vs. 43.54 N,

D

respectively). These data are in agreement with Holmes, Montgomery & Lawrence

TE

(2013) who indicated that steaks injected with fat had an average shear force value 19%

AC CE P

lower than non-injected control steaks. These data are also in agreement with Durham et al. (1961), whom noted that the steaks injected with fat required less pounds of cutting pressure. Standard beef carcasses historically have produced shear force values greater than Prime beef carcasses (Emerson, Woerner, Belk & Tatum, 2014). Timm, Unruh, Dikeman, Hunt, Lawrence, Boyer, & Marsden (2003) reported Standard steaks had greater values for Warner-Bratzler shear force than Prime steaks, indicating that steaks from carcasses graded Standard were less tender. Pork-fat injected steaks averaged 28.44% cooking loss compared to controls that lost an average of 19.67% - a difference of 8.77% (P < 0.01). Similarly; Holmes, Montgomery & Lawrence (2013) reported 8.62% greater loss for fat-injected steaks over controls. Pork

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT fat injected steaks cooked an average 6 minutes quicker than the control steaks. We hypothesize that cooking time decreases as meat density decreases.

PT

3.4 Trained sensory

RI

Trained panelists detected (P = 0.02) an off-flavor for pork fat injected steaks (Table 3)

SC

and rated the PFI steaks (6.46 ± 0.80) greater in off-flavour (e.g. peanut, burnt, porky,

NU

cow-like) than CON steaks (6.14 ± 0.75). However, scores for tenderness, juiciness, myofibrillar tenderness, and connective tissue were not different (P ≥ 0.15). We

MA

hypothesized a “Halo effect” for the trained sensory panelists, where they were likely overwhelmed by the off-flavor of pork in beef and were unable to discern the other

D

palatability attributes (Lawless, 1995). Panelists that already have an impression about

TE

the product when asked about a second trait – will often form a logical association (e.g.

AC CE P

dry = tough) (Clark & Lawless, 1994; Stone et al., 2012). 3.5 Consumer demographics and sensory evaluation Demographic data indicated that participants were 56% male and 44% female, ranging in age from 18 to 73 years, with a median age of 27 (Table 4). Highest levels of education completed were reported as: High School - 44%; Trade School - 1%; Associates Degree 21%; Bachelor’s Degree - 13%; Master’s Degree - 11%; Professional Degree (Ph.D., Ed.D., M.D., J.D., or D.V.M.) - 10%. Consumers were represented by 7% Interracial, 13% African-American/Black, 19% Hispanic/Latino, and 61% Caucasian/ White. Annual household income was reported as: less than $10,000 - 23%; $10,001 to $30,000 - 26%; $30,001 to $50,000 - 14%; $50,001 to $70,000 - 11%; $70,001 to $90,000 - 10%; $90,001 to $100,000 - 3%; and greater than $100,000 - 13%. Frequency of beef

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT consumption (Table 5) was recorded as: daily - 22%; weekly - 66%; monthly - 9%; yearly - 2%; Never/NA - 1%. Grades of beef preferred when purchasing a steak were:

PT

Prime - 39%; Choice - 32%; Select - 9%; Standard - 1%; No Preference - 19%.

RI

Consumers rated visual like appearance of PFI steaks (7.14) greater (P = 0.01; data not

SC

reported in tabular form) than CON steaks (6.20). Consumers tended (P = 0.08) to report greater tenderness like ratings for the PFI steaks (6.7 ± 0.6) as compared to the CON

NU

steaks (6.3 ± 0.7). For juiciness, consumers reported greater (P = 0.05) like ratings for

MA

PFI steaks (6.3 ± 0.75) than CON steaks (5.7 ± 0.70). However, like ratings for flavor and texture were not different (P ≥ 0.13). Consumers were asked to choose which sample

D

they preferred based on tenderness, juiciness, flavor, and texture ratings. Of the 140

TE

consumers, 83 (59.3%) preferred (P = 0.02) the PFI steaks whereas 57 (41.7%) of the

AC CE P

consumers preferred the CON steaks. Because the trained sensory data were in contrast to the consumer panel and WBSF data and based upon comments we received from the sensory panelist organizers, we hypothesized the plausibility of a halo effect; caused by evaluating all sensory factors at one time (Lawless, 1995). Panelists that already had a negative impression about the sampled product (due to the pork off-flavour) may have been so overwhelmed by the pork flavor in a beef steak that they were unable to discern the other individual palatability attributes. Holmes et al. (2013) reported consumers preferred enhanced steaks 2.2:1 over controls and rated beef fat enhanced steaks more tender and juicy than non-enhanced steaks. Consumers during the controlled evaluation and survey requested seasoning to increase

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT the flavor of the meat sample. Comments at the end of the survey suggest consumers associate flavor as an essential attribute correlated with tenderness (i.e. no salt flavor =

PT

less tender meat).

RI

Further investigations of lipid injection should include use of antioxidants to retard lipid

SC

oxidation and improve palatability and willingness to pay for a value-added product. Antioxidants have been used to decrease the oxidative changes of lipids and proteins that

NU

are easily oxidized (Shah, Bosco & Mir, 2014). The off-flavour intensity and descriptions

MA

provided by the trained sensory panel could be explained by the oxidative properties of pork fat within the beef muscle cut. Karre, Lopez & Getty (2013) and Shah, Bosco &

D

Mir, (2014) reported that oxidative changes may negatively affect meat sensory and

TE

nutritional attributes. Therefore, the use of natural or synthetic antioxidants could be used

AC CE P

to reduce lipid peroxidation (Zuo, Wang, & Zhan, 2002). Future research should also investigate methods to reduce the needle streaks that appeared (Figure 1) in the steak in an effort to more closely mimic naturally deposited marbling. A factorial study investigating injector pump pressure and fat temperature is warranted to optimize fat dispersion. 4. Conclusion Mechanically injecting low quality beef striploins with pork subcutaneous fat altered proximate analysis, decreased WBSF values, and improved consumer sensory palatability attributes. Consumers’ preferred PFI steaks over CON steaks but an undesirable flavor of pork that appeared to mask the desired beef flavor made it difficult for the trained sensory panelists to discern the other palatability attributes.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

PT

5. References Chichester, L. M., Consumers’ Perception and Preferences of Meat and the Meat Industry (2009). Unpublished doctoral dissertation; West Texas A&M University, Canyon.

RI

Child, J., Bertholle, L., & Beck, S. (1983). Mastering the Art of French Cooking, Knopf publishing.

SC

Clark, CC & Lawless, HT. (1994). Limiting response alternatives in time–intensity scaling: an examination of the halo-dumping effect. Chemical Senses, 19, 583– 594.

NU

DeGeer, S.L., Hunt, M.C., Bratcher, C.L., Crozier-Dodson, B.A., Johnson, D.E., & Stika, J.F. (2009). Effects of dry aging of bone-in and boneless strip loins using two aging processes for two aging times. Meat Science, 83, 768-774.

MA

Durham, R.M., Elliott, H.,& Zinn, D.W., (1961). Techniques for marbling beef carcasses. Journal of Animal Science, 20, 916-917.

TE

D

Emerson, M. R., Woerner, D. R., Belk, K. E., & Tatum, J. D. (2013). Effectiveness of USDA instrument-based marbling measurements for categorizing beef carcasses according to differences in longissimus muscle sensory attributes. Journal of Animal Science, 91, 1024-1034.

AC CE P

Farouk, M., Al-Mazeedi, H., Sabow, A., Bekhit, A., Adeyemi, K., Sazili, A., & Ghani, A. (2014). Halal and kosher slaughter methods and meat quality: A review. Meat Science, 98, 505-519. Gisslen, W. Professional Cooking for Canadian Chefs (2003), 5th Edition. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc., Holmes, L., Montgomery, T., & Lawrence, T. (2013). Post mortem fat injection to improve beef palatability. Fleischwirtschaft, Issue 6, 64-66. Karre, L., Lopez, K., & Getty, K. (2013). Natural antioxidants in meat and poultry products. Meat Science, 94, 220-227. Lawless, H. (1995). Dimensions of sensory quality: a critique. Food Quality And Preference, 6, 191-199. Lerner, P. & Rabello, A. (2006). The Prohibition of Ritual Slaughtering (Kosher Shechita and Halal) and Freedom of Religion of Minorities. Journal of Law and Religion, 22, 1-62. Miller, M.F., Carr, M.A., Crockett, K.L., & Hoover, L.C. (2001). Consumer thresholds for establishing the value of beef tenderness. Journal of Animal Science, 79, 3062-3068.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Moody, W. G. (1983). Beef flavor-a review. Food Technology, 37, 227-230.

SC

RI

PT

Moore, M. C., G. D. Gray, D. S. Hale, C. R. Kerth, D. B. Griffin, J. W. Savell, C. R. Raines, K. E. Belk, D. R. Woerner, J. D. Tatum, J. L. Igo, D. L. VanOverbeke, G. G. Mafi, T. E. Lawrence, R. J. Delmore, Jr., L. M. Christensen, S. D. Shackelford, D. A. King, T. L. Wheeler, L. R. Meadows, and M. E. O’Connor. (2012). National Beef Quality Audit–2011: In-plant survey of targeted carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, value, and marketing of fed steers and heifers. Journal of Animal Science, 90, 5143-5151.

NU

Pietrasik, Z., & Shand, P.J. (2004). Effect of blade tenderization and tumbling time on the processing characteristics and tenderness of injected cooked roast beef. Meat Science, 66, 871-879.

MA

Pietrasik, Z., Dhanda, J. S., Shand, P. J. & Pegg, R. B. (2006). Influence of Injection, Packaging, and Storage Conditions on the Quality of Beef and Bison Steaks. Journal of Food Science, 71, S110–S118.

TE

D

Romans, J. R., W. J. Costello., C. W. Carlson., M. L. Greaser, & K. W. Jones. (2001). Meat as a food. Pp. 909-927. The Meat We Eat. Interstate Publishers Inc. Danville, IL.

AC CE P

Shah, M.A., Bosco, S.D., & Mir, S.A., (2014). Plant extracts as natural antioxidants in meat and meat products. Meat Science, 98, 21-33. Stone, H., Bleibaum, R. N., & Thomas, H. A. (2012). Sensory evaluation practices (4th edition). San Diego, CA, US: Elsevier Academic Press. Timm, R. R., Unruh, J. A., Dikeman, M. E., Hunt, M. C., Lawrence, T. E., Boyer, J. J., & Marsden, J. L. (2003). Mechanical measures of uncooked beef longissimus muscle can predict sensory panel tenderness and Warner-Bratzler Shear force of cooked steaks. Journal of Animal Science, 81, 1721-1727. Zuo, Y., Wang, C., & Zhan, J. (2002). Separation, characterization, and quantitation of benzoic and phenolic antioxidants in American cranberry fruit by GC–MS. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry, 50, 3789–3794.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 1. Descriptive statistics of carcass traits for sample population. Item Mean Median Std. dev. Quartile dev. th 12 rib subcutaneous fat, cm 0.50 ±0.25 109.0 1.59 368.1 1.08

±10.2 ±0.17 ±43.9 ±0.26

PT

Longissimus muscle area, cm Kidney-pelvic-heart fat, % Hot carcass weight, kg USDA Yield Gradea Marbling Scoreb

RI

2

290

±20

Max

0.05 96.8 1.26 285.0 1.0 230

1.04 133.8 1.99 489.6 2.0 380

USDA yield grade = 2.5 + 2.5 (12th rib subcutaneous fat depth, in.) + 0.0038 (hot carcass weight, lbs) + 0.2 (kidneypelvic-heart fat, %) – 0.32 (longissimus muscle area, in2) b Marbling Score: (Prime) abundant=900, moderately abundant=800, slightly abundant=700; (Choice) moderate=600, modest=500, small=400; (Select) slight=300; (Standard) traces=200, practically devoid= 200’; e.g.(290= traces 90).

AC CE P

TE

D

MA

NU

SC

a

Min.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC CE P

TE

D

RI

12.61 67.58 61.81 22.47 32.12 9.55 5.45 21.60 28.44

SC

MA

72.79 62.84 24.36 32.63 2.26 4.17 24.80 19.67 43.54

NU

Injection,% Moisture, % (uncooked) Moisture, % (cooked) Protein, % (uncooked) Protein, % (cooked) Fat, % (uncooked) Fat, % (cooked) Cooking time, minutes Cooking loss,% Warner-Bratzler Shear Force, N

PT

Table 2. Injection, proximate analysis and objective tenderness attributes of control and pork-fat injected beef striploin steaks Control (CON) Pork-fat injected (PFI) SEM P-value Items 1.80 Green weight, kg 1.87 0.06 0.14 1.80 Injected weight, kg 2.12 0.11 <0.01

24.51

0.21 0.23 0.14 0.24 0.25 0.22 0.13 0.21 0.17

<0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.14 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 3. Trained sensory panel evaluation of control and pork-fat injected beef striploin steaks cooked to 71°C Pork-Fat Injected

P-value

Tendernessa

5.8 ± 0.45

6.0 ± 0.43

0.62

Juicinessb

4.6 ± 0.35

4.6 ± 0.23

0.15

Myofibrillar tendernessa

6.0 ± 0.88

6.5 ± 1.00

0.50

Connective tissuec

6.5 ± 0.63

6.7 ± 0.88

0.71

Off-flavourd

8.0 ± 1.00

5=slightly tender, 6=moderately tender

b

4=slightly dry, 5=slightly juicy

c

6=traces, 7=practically none

d

6=traces, 7=intense, 8= extremely intense

AC CE P

TE

D

MA

RI

NU

a

PT

Control

SC

Item

6.0 ± 1.50

0.02

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 4. Demographics of consumer sensory survey participants Variables

Frequency

PT

Gender Male Female Age

TE

MA

D

Education Less than high school High school Trade school Associates degree Bachelor’s degree Master’s degree Professionals degree Other

NU

SC

RI

< 21 22-29 30-39 40-49 50-59 > 59

56% 44% 30% 44% 9% 9% 5% 3% 0% 44% 1% 21% 13% 11% 10% 0% 13% 0% 19% 7% 0% 61% 0%

Income, $ Less than 10,000 10,001-30,000 30,001-50,000 50,001-70,000 70,001-90,000 90,001-100,000 100,001 or more

23% 26% 14% 11% 10% 3% 13%

AC CE P

Ethnicity African-American/Black Asian Pacific/Islander Hispanic/Latino Interracial Native American/American Indian Caucasian/White Other

Table 5. Frequency of beef consumption and beef quality grade preference

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Variables

Frequency

Beef Consumption 22%

PT

Daily Weekly

RI

Monthly

SC

Yearly Never/NA

NU

Grade or Beef Preferred Prime

MA

Choice Select

D

Standard

AC CE P

TE

No Preference

66% 9% 2% 1%

39% 32% 9% 1% 19%

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Table 6. Consumer sensory evaluation of control and PFI beef striploin steaks cooked to 71°C Pork-Fat Injected

P-value

Tendernessa

6.3 ± 0.70

6.7 ± 0.60

0.08

Juicinessa

5.7 ± 0.70

6.3 ± 0.75

0.05

Flavora

5.8 ± 0.45

Texturea

6.1 ±0.75

0.23

6.4 ± 0.80

0.13

59.3

0.02

5.9 ± 0.50

NU

TE

D

MA

4 = dislike, 5 = neutral, 6 = like, 7 = like slightly

AC CE P

a

RI

40.7

Overall preference, %

PT

Control

SC

Item

AC CE P

TE

D

MA

NU

SC

RI

PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

Figure 1. Top – control steaks; bottom – pork-fat injected steaks.

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

LATERAL

Warner-Bratzler Shear Force (2.54 cm thick)

Warner-Bratzler Shear Force (2.54 cm thick)

Warner-Bratzler Shear Force (2.54 cm thick)

Warner-Bratzler Shear Force (2.54 cm thick)

Uncooked Proximate Analysis (2.54 cm thick)

Uncooked Proximate Analysis (2.54 cm thick)

Cooked Proximate Analysis (2.54 cm thick)

Cooked Proximate Analysis (2.54 cm thick)

D

Consumer Sensory (2.54 cm thick)

RI

SC

NU

MA

Trained Sensory (2.54 cm thick)

PT

MEDIAL

Trained Sensory (2.54 cm thick)

Consumer Sensory (2.54 cm thick) Consumer Sensory (2.54 cm thick)

Consumer Sensory (2.54 cm thick)

Consumer Sensory (2.54 cm thick)

Removal of Vein Portion

Removal of Vein Portion

AC CE P

TE

Consumer Sensory (2.54 cm thick)

Figure 2. Allocation of steaks to analyses

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT Ballot Instructions and Demographic Information

❷ GENDER

⃝ MALE

⃝ FEMALE

❸ AGE

RI

❶ YOUR PARTICIPANT NUMBER __________ ____________

PT

Please complete the demographic information below. After you have received your cooked steak sample we ask that you consume it as you would normally do and not share your thoughts with those around you, as you fill out this ballot. Please, remember to insert your Participant ID number in the appropriate blank. ATT: YOU MUST BE 18 YEARS OF AGE TO COMPLETE THIS SURVEY. Thank you again for participating in this consumer survey. REMINDER: ALL SURVEYS WILL REMAIN CONFIDENTIAL. Once you have completed the survey please place in the basket provided. This survey should only take 10-15 minutes of your time.

⃝ Less than High School

SC

❹ HIGHEST LEVEL OF EDUCATION COMPLETED: ⃝ Associates Degree

⃝ High School

⃝ Trade School

⃝ Bachelor’s Degree ⃝ Master’s Degree ⃝ PhD, EdD, MD, JD, DVM, or other professional degree (Please Specify)__________________________ ⃝ AFRICAN-AMERICAN

⃝ASIAN PACIFIC/ISLANDER

NU

❺ ETHNICITY: INTERRACIAL

❻ ANNUAL HOUSEHOLD INCOME: ⃝$70,001-$90,000 ⃝$90,001-$100,000

⃝WHITE/CAUCASION

MA

⃝ NATIVE AMERICAN/AMERICAN INDIAN SPECIFY)_____________________

⃝ < $10,000

D

⃝$100,001 OR MORE ❼ HOW OFTEN DO YOU CONSUME BEEF?

⃝DAILY

⃝WEEKLY

⃝ PRIME

⃝ CHOICE

⃝HISPANIC/ LATINO

⃝

⃝ OTHER (PLEASE ⃝ $30,001-$50,000

⃝MONTHLY ⃝ SELECT

⃝$50,001-$70,000

⃝YEARLY

⃝NEVER

⃝STANDARD

⃝ NO

AC CE P

TE

❽ WHICH GRADE OF BEEF DO YOU PREFER? PREFERENCE ❾ SAMPLES AND RATINGS

⃝ $10,001-$30,000

⃝ Other

On this section of the ballot enter the three-digit code for each of your steak samples in the boxes as the code is displayed on the label. Next, rate each sample based on tenderness, juiciness and flavor. After you have rated each sample please enter the code of the sample you prefer overall. (9) Like extremely, (8) Like very much, (7) Like slightly, (6) Like, (5) Neutral, (4) Dislike, (3) Dislike slightly, (2) Dislike very much, (1) Dislike extremely 3-digit sample code Tenderness Juiciness Flavor Overall preference

❿ REVIEW THE VISUAL APPEARANCE OF THE UN-COOKED STEAKS & PLEASE RATE EACH SAMPLE (9) Like extremely, (8) Like very much, (7) Like slightly, (6) Like, (5) Neutral, (4) Dislike, (3) Dislike slightly, (2) Dislike very much, (1) Dislike extremely STEAK A ______

STEAK B ______

SC

RI

PT

ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPT

AC CE P

TE

D

MA

NU

Figure 3. Consumer Sensory Evaluation Ballot