- Email: [email protected]
Protein, fat, moisture and cooking yields from a U.S. study of retail beef cuts
G Model
YJFCA 2585 1–9 Journal of Food Composition and Analysis xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Food Composition and Analysis journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jfca 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Original Research Article
Protein, fat, moisture and cooking yields from a U.S. study of retail beef cuts M. Roseland a,*, Quynhanh V. Nguyen a, Juhi R. Williams a, Larry W. Douglass b, Kristine Y. Patterson a, Juliette C. Howe c, J. Chance Brooks d, Leslie D. Thompson d, Dale R. Woerner e, Terry E. Engle e, Jeffrey W. Savell f, Kerri B. Gehring f, Amy M. Cifelli g, Shalene H. McNeill g
Q1 Janet
Q2 a U.S. Department of Agriculture, Nutrient Data Laboratory, 10300 Baltimore Avenue Building 005, Beltsville, MD 20705, United States b
Private Consultant, 742 Sanctuary Lane, Longmont, CO 80504, United States Private Consultant, 7800 LaSalle Court, Severn, MD 21144, United States d TexasTech University, Department of Animal and Food Sciences, Box 42141, Lubbock, TX 79409, United States e Colorado State University, Center for Meat Safety and Quality, Department of Animal Sciences, Campus Delivery 1170, Fort Collins, CO 80523, United States f Texas A&M University, Department of Animal Science, Room 133 Kleberg, 2471 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843, United States g National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (Contractor to the Beef Checkoff), 9110 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 300, Centennial, CO 80112, United States c
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history: Received 30 September 2014 Received in revised form 23 April 2015 Accepted 24 April 2015 Available online xxx
Nutrient data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) are an important resource for U.S. and international databases. To ensure that data for retail beef cuts in USDA’s National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference (SR) are current, a comprehensive, nationwide, multi-phase study was conducted. Samples were collected and analyzed in three phases based on primal category. Using a statistically based sampling plan, 72 beef carcasses per phase were obtained with nationally representative quality and yield grades, genders and genetic types. Retail cuts were fabricated, cooked and dissected to obtain component weights. Nutrient values were determined by validated laboratories using quality assurance procedures. Full nutrient profiles were made available in SR (http://www.ars.usda.gov/nutrientdata). Results for 16 beef retail cuts were compared for cooking yield and protein, fat and moisture concentrations. For example, cooked fat levels differed among three roasted cuts and among three grilled cuts from chuck, rib and loin (p < 0.01). Cooking yield for roasted ribeye (76%) was lower (p < 0.001) than for grilled ribeye (83%) or for chuck eye grilled (80%) or roasted (84%). This study demonstrates the importance of maintaining data for a variety of retail beef cuts due to their unique properties and different cooking methods. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Keywords: Beef Chuck Rib Loin Grill Roast Braise Proximate data Food analysis Food composition Food processing
16 17 18 19
1. Introduction
20 21 22
The prominence of beef in U.S. diets is evidenced by the estimated 56.3 pounds (25.5 kg) of beef consumed annually per capita (U.S. Department of Agriculture and Economic Research
Service, 2014). Some observational data have suggested links between consumption of red meat, including beef, and increased risk of stroke, heart disease and diabetes (Bernstein et al., 2010; Sinha et al., 2009). However, the ‘‘Beef in an Optimal Lean Diet’’ study (Roussell et al., 2012) indicated that diets including
Abbreviations: CVD, cardiovascular disease; USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture; SR, USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference; NDL, Nutrient Data Laboratory; NDI, Nutrient Database Improvement; QC, quality control; EP, edible portion. * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 301 504 0715; fax: +1 301 504 0632. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.M. Roseland), [email protected] (Q.V. Nguyen), [email protected] (J.R. Williams), [email protected] (L.W. Douglass), [email protected] (K.Y. Patterson), [email protected] (J.C. Howe), [email protected] (J.C. Brooks), [email protected] (L.D. Thompson), [email protected] (D.R. Woerner), [email protected] (T.E. Engle), [email protected] (J.W. Savell), [email protected] (K.B. Gehring), [email protected] (A.M. Cifelli), [email protected] (S.H. McNeill). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2015.04.013 0889-1575/Published by Elsevier Inc.
Please cite this article in press as: Roseland, J.M., et al., Protein, fat, moisture and cooking yields from a U.S. study of retail beef cuts. J. Food Compos. Anal. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2015.04.013
23 24 25 26 27
G Model
YJFCA 2585 1–9 J.M. Roseland et al. / Journal of Food Composition and Analysis xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
2
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85
3–5 ounces (85–142 g) of lean beef per day lessened cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk (Roussell et al., 2014). Other investigations have also shown that lean red meat is unlikely to increase the risk of CVD or colon cancer (McAfee et al., 2010) or of weight gain (Melanson et al., 2003). Furthermore, red meat consumption can improve nutritional status (Asp et al., 2012) and reduce the risk of noncommunicable diseases worldwide (McNeill and Van Elswyk, 2012). Up-to-date nutrient data for U.S. beef cuts are essential to enable researchers to accurately evaluate beef’s role in health and to inform consumers about making healthy selections. Despite evidence of beef’s value and popularity (McNeill et al., 2012; Zanovec et al., 2010) as well as dietary recommendations supporting lean meat consumption (U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010), per capita U.S. beef consumption decreased by 32.2% from 1970 to 2013 (U.S. Department of Agriculture and Economic Research Service, 2014). This decline might have been due, in part, to an outdated perception of beef as being high in fat and cholesterol (McNeill et al., 2012). Contradicting popular perceptions, the fat content of retail beef cuts declined over the past four decades (McNeill et al., 2012; National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, 2014) due to reduced fat trim on marketed cuts (Hiza and Bente, 2011), leaner cattle breeds and improved animal husbandry practices. Therefore, communicating these changes to the public became critical. Beef nutrient data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have been available since 1926. The USDA issues updates on an ongoing basis, based upon research such as the study described in this report, to reflect nutrient content of beef cuts (Desimone et al., 2013; Dixon et al., 2012; Leheska et al., 2008; Savell et al., 1991; Smith et al., 1989; Wahrmund-Wyle et al., 2000a). The USDA’s dataset, the National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference (SR), is the major source of U.S. nutrient data. The Nutrient Data Laboratory (NDL) maintains SR, which plays a crucial role in regulations and provides the scientific basis for research and dietary practice in the United States (Ahuja et al., 2013) and abroad (Merchant and Dehghan, 2006). Factors such as cooking temperature, portion size and final internal temperature can influence cooking yield, amount of moisture and fat change due to cooking, and amount of fat and moisture in the cooked cut. Since the 1950s, USDA has released cooking yield tables describing changes in food weight due to moisture loss, water absorption, or fat gains or losses during preparation (Roseland et al., 2014). These data are used by researchers to estimate cooked nutrient values based on raw values and by consumers to determine amounts to purchase. This report provides statistical data comparisons from an indepth nationally representative beef research study, showing similarities and significant differences in moisture, protein, fat and cooking yields among specific retail beef cuts. These comparisons, made according to cut characteristics and cooking methods, provide a basis for understanding connections between factors that affect the nutrient composition of meat. The purpose of this report is to compare data for nutrients and for cooking yields for chuck, rib and loin cuts from three phases of a comprehensive beef study, and to discuss implications and applications to meat science.
86
2. Materials and methods
87
2.1. Study procedures
88 89 90
To provide up-to-date data for different U.S. beef cuts, a comprehensive multi-phase research study was designed and conducted through collaboration among scientists at NDL,
Colorado State University, Texas A & M University, Texas Tech University and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. The multi-phase nature of the study had three parts, with each part consisting of one or two specific primals and done in consecutive years. Separate phases were necessary to allow sufficient time for personnel to process carcasses for obtaining all of the specified cuts for the study. This Nutrient Database Improvement (NDI) study was funded largely by the Beef Checkoff program. The NDI study obtained analytical values for 32 cuts covering a wide array of nutrients, and various aspects of the study have been reported (Martin et al., 2013; West et al., 2014). This report compares protein, fat, moisture and cooking yields for 16 of the beef cuts from the study, from the chuck, loin and round primals of the beef carcass (Fig. 1). To address specific hypotheses, ten paired comparisons were made among the 16 cuts (Tables 1 and 2). Most of these hypotheses involved comparisons between cooking methods. For example, cuts fabricated as steaks, which were grilled, were compared to corresponding roasts. These comparisons included chuck eye, tenderloin, shoulder and ribeye boneless and bone-in lip-on cuts. Comparisons were also made of the effects of alternative fabrications, such as bone-in vs. boneless; fat trim levels as 0.0cm vs. 0.32-cm (0.0-inch vs.1/8-inch); thickness as 2.54-cm vs. 5.1cm (1-inch vs. 2-inch); and lip-on vs. lip-off (tail end of ribeye muscle). The chuck under blade and Denver cut steaks were paired for comparison because Denver cut is fabricated using the serratus ventralis muscle from the under blade steak, which is comprised of several muscles. Fig. 2 illustrates the major steps used to conduct the NDI study (National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, 2014). The research team established protocols for each major aspect of the study. Detailed procedures were especially crucial to ensure consistency due to the size and scope of the study and because it was implemented at several sites in three main phases over five years. Retail cuts from chuck and brisket were analyzed in Phase 1, rib and plate in Phase 2, and loin and round in Phase 3. This paper includes results from all phases for seven cuts from the chuck, five rib cuts and four loin cuts.
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128
2.2. Sampling plan and sample acquisition
129
A statistical sampling plan was developed to obtain up to 72 beef carcasses (36 pairs) per phase. Samples were obtained from major U.S. packing plants in the following cities: Green Bay, Wisconsin; Greeley, Colorado; Dodge City, Kansas; Tolleson, Arizona; Omaha, Nebraska; Plainview, Texas; and Corpus Christi, Texas. Each collaborating university obtained beef carcasses from packing plants in two states. Carcasses were chosen to be nationally representative for the following criteria, based upon the National Quality Beef Audit containing data on characteristics of U.S. fed cattle (Garcia et al., 2008):
130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
Quality grade: 67% USDA Choice (50% Upper Choice and 50% Lower Choice) and 33% USDA Select
142 143 144
Fig. 1. Beef primal cuts (National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, 2013).
Please cite this article in press as: Roseland, J.M., et al., Protein, fat, moisture and cooking yields from a U.S. study of retail beef cuts. J. Food Compos. Anal. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2015.04.013
G Model
YJFCA 2585 1–9 J.M. Roseland et al. / Journal of Food Composition and Analysis xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
3
Table 1 Effects of cut and cooking method on percent cooking yield, fat change, and moisture change for comparable beef cuts by cooking method and size. Cut
Fabrication
Cooking method
Bone status
Cooking temperature/final internal temperature (8C)
Trim (cm)
N
% Cooking yield (SEM)
% Fat change (SEM)
% Moisture change (SEM)
Chuck eye Chuck eye
Roast Steak
Roasted Grilled
Boneless Boneless
160/60 195/70
0.0 0.0
36 36
Ribeye lip-on Ribeye lip-on
Roast Steak
Roasted Grilled
Boneless Boneless
160/60 195/70
0.32 0.32
36 36
Tenderloin Tenderloin
Roast Steak
Roasted Grilled
Boneless Boneless
160/60 195/70
0.0 0.0
36 36
Shoulder Shoulder
Roast Steak
Braised Grilled
Boneless Boneless
120/85 195/70
0.0 0.0
36 36
Under blade Denver cut (serratus ventralis)
Steak Steak
Braised Grilled
Boneless Boneless
120/85 195/70
0.0 0.0
36 36
84a(0.64) 80b(0.64) p < 0.001 76c(0.64) 83a(0.64) p < 0.001 82b(0.64) 78b(0.64) p < 0.001 66(0.64) 78(0.64) p < 0.001 65(0.65) 75(0.68)
0.6b(0.49) 0.6b(0.48) p = 0.1 3.2a(0.52) 1.9a(0.41) p = 0.06 0.4b(0.21) 0.4b(0.21) p = 1.0 0.5(0.25) 0.0(0.16) p = 0.03 1.0(0.90) 2.0(0.46)
18.5b(0.86) 18.2b(0.74) p = 0.09 21.3a(0.46) 18.3b(0.91) p = 0.01 21.3a(0.33) S28.4a(0.50) p < 0.001 S32.3(0.75) 23.5(0.58) p < 0.001 29.3(1.54) 24.3(0.76)
p < 0.001
p = 0.4
p = 0.01
For cuts prepared using the same cooking method, means followed by the same letter (a, b, or c) are not significantly different (p < 0.05). For paired cuts, bold-face indicates the greater cooking yield, or the fat and moisture change with the greater loss (p < 0.05). SEM indicates standard error of the mean.
146 145 147 148 149 150
Yield grade: 50% USDA Yield Grade 2 and 50% USDA Yield Grade 3 Gender: 67% steers and 33% heifers Genetic type: 11.1% dairy and 88.9% non-dairy
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
Carcasses that met the same selection criteria were paired to allow for alternative fabrication procedures (e.g. bone-in vs. boneless) and to obtain adequate quantities for analysis for some cuts. Additional details on carcass selection are available elsewhere (Acheson, 2013; Martin et al., 2013; West et al., 2014). The research team selected beef cuts for the NDI study that met one or more of these criteria: (1) represented a significant percentage of the U.S. market share for beef, (2) required nutrition labeling, and/or (3) needed updated data because amount of fat trim had decreased or because of other market trends.
161
2.3. Retail cut fabrication
162 163 164 165 166 167
Carcasses were fabricated by the study team into subprimals and shipped to the respective universities. Qualified laboratory personnel fabricated the subprimals into the retail cuts required for the NDI study within 14–21 days postmortem. Steaks were fabricated to thickness of 2.54 cm, except tenderloin steaks which were 3.81 cm. Mean weights of the roasts ranged from 620 g
(tenderloin) to 2627 g (ribeye bone-in lip-on). Additional fabrication details have been reported elsewhere for rib and plate (Martin et al., 2013), chuck (West et al., 2014), and loin and round (Acheson, 2013). Retail cuts were labeled, vacuum packaged and frozen until they were cooked or dissected.
168 169 170 171 172
2.4. Sample dissection and cooking
173
Frozen raw samples were tempered through refrigeration to an internal temperature of 0–5 8C before being cooked and dissected. Components for each cut were identified; separable lean, separable fat, and refuse were weighed (to the nearest 0.1 g) before and after cooking. ‘‘Separable lean’’, which included fat striations (marbling) within the muscle, was defined as muscle tissue that could be readily separated from fat, bone and heavy connective tissue. ‘‘Separable fat’’ was the intermuscular or ‘‘seam’’ fat deposited between muscles plus external trim fat on the outer surface of the cut. ‘‘Refuse’’ was the bone and heavy connective tissue. Intermuscular fat and external trim fat amounts were recorded as two separate types of fat and were frozen for later homogenization and analysis. The retail cuts were cooked using NDI protocols, which are in agreement with industry guidelines and are appropriate for each
174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188
Table 2 Effects of cut and cooking method on percent cooking yield, fat change, and moisture change for comparable ribeye cuts by cooking method, bone status, and lip status. Cut
Fabrication
Cooking method
Bone status
Cooking temperature/final internal temperature (8C)
Trim (cm)
N
% Cooking yield (SEM)
% Fat change (SEM)
% Moisture change (SEM)
Ribeye lip-on Ribeye lip-on
Roast Steak
Roasted Grilled
Bone-in Bone-in
160/60 195/70
0.32 0.32
36 36
Ribeye lip-on Ribeye lip-on
Roast Steak
Roasted Grilled
Boneless Boneless
160/60 195/70
0.32 0.32
36 36
Ribeye lip-off
Steak
Grilled
Boneless
195/70
0.32
36
77a(0.65) 85a(0.64) p < 0.001 76a(0.64) 83bx(0.64) p < 0.001 82x(0.64) p = 0.09
S3.4a(0.45) 2.0a(0.40) p = 0.03 3.2a(0.52) 1.9ax(0.41) p = 0.06 2.1x(0.29) p = 0.7
18.0b(0.36) 17.0a(0.53) p = 0.2 S21.3a(0.46) 18.3ax(0.91) p = 0.009 19.7x(0.34) p = 0.2
For bone-in vs. boneless cuts prepared using the same cooking method, means followed by the same letter (a or b) are not significantly different (p < 0.05). For lip-on vs. lip-off cuts prepared using the same cooking method, means followed by the same letter (x) are not significantly different (p < 0.05). Within bone-in pairs and within boneless pairs, bold-face indicates the greater cooking yield, or the fat and moisture change with the greater loss (p < 0.05). SEM indicates standard error of the mean.
Please cite this article in press as: Roseland, J.M., et al., Protein, fat, moisture and cooking yields from a U.S. study of retail beef cuts. J. Food Compos. Anal. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2015.04.013
G Model
YJFCA 2585 1–9 J.M. Roseland et al. / Journal of Food Composition and Analysis xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
4
Nutrient Database Improvement Research Protocol Phase 1: Beef Chuck • Phase 2: Beef Rib and Plate Cuts • Phase 3: Beef Loin and Round Packing Plant Collection 7 different plants nationally representative, 164 representative carcasses collected University Colorado State University, Texas A&M University, Texas Tech
Dissection (Raw) Separable lean, fat and refuse
Fabricated to Retail Cut Specifications 30 different cuts evaluated
Cooking Braised, grilled or roasted
Dissection (Cooked) Separable lean, fat and refuse
Homogenized/Aliquots/Storage Homogenized - samples were combined and mixed to equalize the composition throughout.
Proximates To determine: % of moisture, crude protein, total lipid
Send Data to NDL and Statistician Nutrition research
Composite University samples combined to provide uniformity
Ship to Compositor Samples from all universities sent to one location
Ship for Nutrient Analysis % of moisture, total fat, protein, fatty acids, cholesterol, conjugated linoleic acid, minerals, B-vitamins, choline, vitamin E, vitamin D
Backup & Archive (by Animal)
Aliquots (Samples,Backups, Archives)
Fig. 2. NDI research protocols for sample acquisition, fabrication, dissection, cooking, nutrient analysis, and statistical data analysis.
189 190 191 192
cut. The cooking procedures used, which are summarized below, have been previously described (Acheson, 2013; Martin et al., 2013; West et al., 2014). The cooking procedures were as follows:
195 194 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222
Grilling: Weighed samples were cooked to an internal temperature of 70 8C (158 8F) in Salton two-sided electric grills (Model GRP99, Salton Incorporated, Lake Forest, IL, USA) that had been preheated to 195 8C (383 8F), and were then removed from the grill using tongs or spatulas. Final internal temperatures and cooked weights were recorded immediately. Roasting: Weighed samples were placed on a rack in an uncovered, non-stick anodized aluminum roasting pan (Calphalon Corporation, Toledo, OH, USA) without additional oil or water. The samples were roasted in a preheated 160 8C (325 8F) conventional oven to 60 8C (140 8F) internal temperature, then removed from the oven, and the rise in internal temperature was monitored. The highest temperature reached (immediately before it began dropping) was recorded as the final internal temperature. Final cooked weights were recorded after a 30-min rest period at room temperature. Braising: Weighed samples were browned in a preheated Dutch oven (Calphalon Corporation, Toledo, OH, USA). A small amount of distilled deionized water was added, and the volume of that water was recorded. The samples simmered in the covered Dutch oven in a preheated 120 8C (250 8F) oven until they achieved an internal temperature of 85 8C (185 8F). After the Dutch oven was removed from the heat, the rise in internal temperature was monitored. The highest internal temperature and the volume of remaining cooking liquid were recorded, and sample weights were recorded after a 30-min rest period.
223 224
During cooking, internal temperatures were monitored using a thermocouple placed in the geometric center or thickest portion of
the meat piece. For small or thin cuts, the thermocouple was periodically used during cooking. Samples were chilled for at least 12 h after cooking before further dissection.
225 226 227
2.5. Nutrient analysis
228
All separable lean and fat, both raw and cooked for each cut, was frozen with liquid nitrogen and homogenized for each of the 36 animal replicates. For the analyses described in this report, each sample was analyzed in duplicate for protein, fat, moisture and ash at one of the three university laboratories. Each laboratory underwent a qualifying process overseen by NDL to be approved for analyzing the selected nutrients. Laboratory methods were as follows. Protein was measured by combustion using AOAC method 992.15 (AOAC, 2006), total fat by chloroform-methanol extraction (Folch et al., 1957), moisture by oven drying methods AOAC 950.46 and 934.01 (AOAC, 1993), and ash by the AOAC ash oven method 923.03 or 920.15 (AOAC, 1993). Additional details on homogenization and analytical processes, as well as protein, fat, moisture and ash composition associated with Select and Choice quality grades for cuts from each phase, have been previously published (Acheson, 2013; Martin et al., 2013; West et al., 2014).
229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245
2.6. Quality control
246
Quality control (QC) samples were included in each batch of 10– 20 samples. These materials included a certified reference material (Standard Reference Material 1546, Meat Homogenate, from the National Institute of Standards and Technology) or secondary materials that had been characterized through concurrent analysis of certified reference materials. Blind duplicates were randomly included along with the unknown samples.
247 248 249 250 251 252 253
Please cite this article in press as: Roseland, J.M., et al., Protein, fat, moisture and cooking yields from a U.S. study of retail beef cuts. J. Food Compos. Anal. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2015.04.013
G Model
YJFCA 2585 1–9 J.M. Roseland et al. / Journal of Food Composition and Analysis xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
254 255 256 257 258 259 260
The data results from QC materials for protein, moisture, ash and fat underwent a rigorous review using NDL’s data quality evaluation process (Phillips et al., 2006). Values for each sample’s protein, fat, moisture and ash were checked to ensure that their sum approximated 100%, although a small amount of difference (2%) was allowed due to analytical variability. Based on the QC results, a small percentage of samples (<10%) were reanalyzed.
261
2.7. Cooking yield measures
262 263 264
Pre- and post-cooking weights were used to calculate cooking yields based on the weights of each initial (raw) and final hot Q3 cooked (ckd) cut using this formula:
265 Yield % ¼ 268 267 266 269 270 271 272 273 274 275
ðckd sample ckd weightÞ 100 ðckd sample raw weightÞ
The change in nutrient weight between raw and cooked products for the edible portion (EP) of each cut was used to estimate changes in moisture and fat content during cooking. The equation below was used to calculate the percentage moisture (water) change, where EP refers to edible portion weight. The equation used for % fat change was the same, except that fat values were substituted for water values. ½ðg water ckd EP=100 g ckd EPÞ g ckd EP ½ðg water raw EP=100 g raw EPÞ g raw EP g raw cut as marketed
276 278 277 279 280 281 282 283 284
Note: In calculations of percentage of moisture and fat change, EP comprised lean and fat portions of the cut. The equation used to calculate changes in fat content was the same as that used to calculate changes in moisture content, except that fat values were substituted for moisture (water) values. The percent change for moisture or fat could be positive or negative, indicating a gain or loss, respectively.
285
2.8. Statistical analysis
286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298
A mean of the analytical data that met NDL’s quality criteria was computed for each animal (or pair of animals), cut, cooking method and dependent variable. Genetic type and gender factors were combined into a single factor, genetics/gender, which had three possible combinations – non-dairy/steer, non-dairy/heifer and dairy/steer. Cut and cooking method were also combined into a single factor. Sixteen cut/ cooking method combinations were possible. The mixed model included quality grade, genetics/gender, yield grade, cut/cooking method and all two-factor interactions with quality grade; these two-factor interactions were defined as fixed effects (SAS Institute Inc., 2011). Contrasts were used to partition the variability associated with cut/cooking method into cut,
5
cooking method and the cooking method cut interaction. Random effects were defined as animal within phase, quality grade, genetics/gender and yield grade as the variance for comparison of cuts from different animals. The residual accounted for random variation among cuts from the same animal. Goodnessof-fit statistics were used to identify the final model for fitting heterogeneous variance if such a model fit the data better. Least-square means and estimates were weighted so that nationally representative target percentages for quality grades, yield grades, genders and genetics were achieved, and cuts were equally weighted. Means were averaged across these criteria to obtain an ‘‘all-grade’’ mean. Among the 16 cuts studied, one set of 6 cuts formed a 2 3 factorial for cooking method cut to compare roasted roasts and grilled steaks from three different primals. Another set formed a 2 2 factorial for cooking method bone to compare ribeye cuts with or without bone. Contrasts were used to examine these main effects and interactions in addition to the planned pairwise comparisons. The significance of all paired comparisons among the 16 cuts was based on Student’s t probabilities. Where letters are used within tables or figures in this report to indicate significant differences, the tests were conducted at the p = 0.05 level of significance. Where probabilities are reported within the text, specific probability levels are given as appropriate.
299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323
3. Results and discussion
324
The effects of cut and cooking method on cooking yield factors are expressed as a percentage of each cut’s as-purchased raw to cooked weight (Tables 1–3). The effects of cut and cooking method on protein, fat and moisture concentration are expressed as a percentage (g/100 g) of each cut’s total edible lean and separable fat (Tables 4–6). Different combinations of cooking methods and cuts had different effects on percent cooking yield; percent fat and moisture change; and protein, fat and moisture concentrations. While some effects were significant (p < 0.05), others were not. For all cuts in this report, protein and fat concentrations were higher and moisture concentration was lower after cooking, as expected. All cuts lost moisture and most lost fat during cooking. Percent moisture loss was greater than percent fat loss in each cut during cooking, resulting in a higher concentration of fat and other nutrients in cooked cuts compared to raw cuts (Acheson, 2013; Garrett and Hinman, 1971; Martin et al., 2013; West et al., 2014).
325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341
3.1. Comparisons of loin, chuck, and rib roast and steak cuts by cooking method
342 343
Cooking yields were different among the three roasted cuts (Table 1 and Fig. 3, p < 0.05). Yields were highest for chuck eye (84%) and tenderloin (82%) as compared to ribeye (76%). Among
344 345 346
Table 3 Effects of cut and cooking method on percent cooking yield, fat change, and moisture change for comparable beef cuts by fat trim and size. Cut
Fabrication
Cooking method
Bone status
Cooking temperature/final internal temperature (8C)
Trim (cm)
N
% Cooking yield (SEM)
% Fat change (SEM)
% Moisture change (SEM)
Toploin Toploin
Steak Steak
Grilled Grilled
Boneless Boneless
195/70 195/70
0.0 0.32
36 36
Under blade Under blade
Roast Steak
Braised Braised
Boneless Boneless
120/85 120/85
0.0 0.0
36 36
85(0.64) 86(0.64) p = 0.3 67(0.67) 65(0.65) p = 0.04
S1.8(0.32) 3.0(0.31) p < 0.001 0.4(0.91) 1.0(0.90) p = 0.3
19.7(0.36) S21.9(0.41) p < 0.001 29.4(1.38) 29.3(1.54) p = 1.0
For paired cuts, bold-face indicates the greater cooking yield, or the fat and moisture change with the greater loss (p < 0.05). SEM indicates standard error of the mean.
Please cite this article in press as: Roseland, J.M., et al., Protein, fat, moisture and cooking yields from a U.S. study of retail beef cuts. J. Food Compos. Anal. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2015.04.013
G Model
YJFCA 2585 1–9 J.M. Roseland et al. / Journal of Food Composition and Analysis xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
6
Table 4 Effects of cut and cooking method on fat, moisture, and protein concentration (g/100 g) for comparable beef cuts by cooking method and size. Cut
Fabrication
Cooking method
Bone status
Cooking temperature/final internal temperature (8C)
Trim (cm)
N
Fat (SEM)
Moisture (SEM)
Protein (SEM)
Chuck eye Chuck eye
Roast Steak
Roasted Grilled
Boneless Boneless
160/60 195/70
0.0 0.0
36 36
Ribeye lip-on Ribeye lip-on
Roast Steak
Roasted Grilled
Boneless Boneless
160/60 195/70
0.32 0.32
36 36
Tenderloin Tenderloin
Roast Steak
Roasted Grilled
Boneless Boneless
160/60 195/70
0.0 0.0
36 36
Shoulder Shoulder
Roast Steak
Braised Grilled
Boneless Boneless
120/85 195/70
0.0 0.0
36 36
Under blade Denver cut (serratusventralis)
Steak Steak
Braised Grilled
Boneless Boneless
120/85 195/70
0.0 0.0
36 36
15.4b(0.64) 19.7b(0.60) p < 0.001 21.5a(0.85) 21.8a(0.45) p = 0.7 8.0c(0.40) 8.8c(0.45) p = 0.009 9.0(0.43) 6.9(0.48) p < 0.001 18.0(0.65) 13.9(0.57)
60.1b(0.70) 55.1b(0.45) p < 0.001 53.9c(0.67) 54.5b(0.33) p = 0.4 64.4a(0.32) 60.4a(0.38) p < 0.001 59.7(0.35) 63.9(0.33) p < 0.001 53.8(0.55) 59.1(0.50)
24.6b(0.34) 25.1b(0.35) p = 0.4 24.3b(0.31) 23.7c(0.19) p = 0.06 27.3a(0.26) 30.6a(0.40) p < 0.001 31.1(0.28) 28.3(0.23) p < 0.001 28.3(0.39) 26.0(0.33)
p < 0.001
p < 0.001
p = 0.01
For cuts prepared using the same cooking method, means followed by the same letter (a, b, or c) are not significantly different (p < 0.05). For paired cuts, bold-face indicates the greater mean (p < 0.05). SEM indicates standard error of the mean.
Table 5 Effects of cut and cooking method on fat, moisture, and protein concentration (g/100 g) for comparable ribeye cuts by cooking method, bone status, and lip status. Cut
Fabrication
Cooking method
Bone status
Cooking temperature/final internal temperature (8C)
Trim (cm)
N
Fat (SEM)
Moisture (SEM)
Protein (SEM)
Ribeye lip-on Ribeye lip-on
Roast Steak
Roasted Grilled
Bone-in Bone-in
160/60 195/70
0.32 0.32
36 36
Ribeye lip-on Ribeye lip-on
Roast Steak
Roasted Grilled
Boneless Boneless
160/60 195/70
0.32 0.32
36 36
Ribeye lip-off
Steak
Grilled
Boneless
195/70
0.32
36
22.7a(0.73) 24.2a(0.50) p = 0.05 21.5a(0.85) 21.8bx(0.45) p = 0.7 19.1y(0.50) p < 0.001
53.3a(0.53) 52.5b(0.34) p = 0.2 53.9a(0.67) 54.5ay(0.33) p = 0.4 55.5x(0.33) p = 0.01
23.5b(0.24) 23.0b(0.23) p = 0.06 24.3a(0.31) 23.7ay(0.19) p = 0.06 24.8x(0.21) p < 0.001
For bone-in vs. boneless cuts prepared using the same cooking method, means followed by the same letter (a or b) are not significantly different (p < 0.05). For lip-on vs. lip-off cuts prepared using the same cooking method, means followed by the same letter (x or y) are not significantly different (p < 0.05). Within bone-in pairs and within boneless pairs, bold-face indicates the greater mean (p < 0.05). SEM indicates standard error of the mean.
Table 6 Effects of cut and cooking method on fat, moisture, and protein concentration (g/100 g) for comparable beef cuts by fat trim and size. Cut
Fabrication
Cooking method
Bone status
Cooking temperature/final internal temperature (8C)
Trim (cm)
N
Fat (SEM)
Moisture (SEM)
Protein (SEM)
Toploin Toploin
Steak Steak
Grilled Grilled
Boneless Boneless
195/70 195/70
0.0 0.32
36 36
Under blade Under blade
Roast Steak
Braised Braised
Boneless Boneless
120/85 120/85
0.0 0.0
36 36
11.2(0.60) 17.7(0.61) p < 0.001 20.4(0.96) 18.0(0.55) p = 0.03
60.0(0.43) 55.9(0.44) p < 0.001 52.6(0.62) 53.8(0.65) p = 0.2
28.6(0.19) 26.2(0.22) p < 0.001 26.8(0.53) 28.3(0.39) p = 0.02
For paired cuts, bold-face indicates the greater mean (p < 0.05). SEM indicates standard error of the mean.
347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356
the set of three grilled steak cuts, the ribeye had the highest cooking yield (83%, p < 0.001), whereas cooking yields for chuck eye and tenderloin were not different. Within the three roast cuts, fat and moisture concentrations were different for each cut (p < 0.001); an inverse relationship was observed between moisture and fat (Fig. 4). Fat concentration was lowest (8.0 g) and moisture concentration was highest (64.4 g) in the tenderloin roast. In contrast, fat concentration was highest (21.5 g) and moisture concentration was lowest (53.9 g) in ribeye roast. Likewise, the grilled steak cuts showed an
inverse relationship between moisture and fat. For example, fat concentration was lowest (8.8 g) and moisture concentration was highest (60.4 g) for tenderloin steak (p < 0.001), whereas fat concentration was highest (21.8 g) and moisture concentration was lowest (54.5 g) for ribeye steak. The study was not designed to account for all variation among phases in the statistical analysis. Therefore, uncontrolled differences among phases could contribute to some of the differences seen among loin, chuck and rib cuts. However, the study design used standardized methods for uniformity across phases in animal
Please cite this article in press as: Roseland, J.M., et al., Protein, fat, moisture and cooking yields from a U.S. study of retail beef cuts. J. Food Compos. Anal. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2015.04.013
357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366
G Model
YJFCA 2585 1–9 J.M. Roseland et al. / Journal of Food Composition and Analysis xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Fig. 3. Effect of roasting and grilling on percent cooking yield for chuck eye, ribeye, and tenderloin cuts. For cuts prepared using the same cooking method, means that lack a common letter are significantly different (p < 0.05).
367 368 369 370
selection and laboratory analysis. For example, animal carcasses in all phases were chosen to fit a selection grid based on weight, yield grade, quality grade (marbling score), gender and genetics type (dairy or beef) as noted in Section 2.2.
371
3.2. Comparisons of paired cuts
372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386
3.2.1. Comparisons of grilled, roasted and braised cooking methods Among pairs of comparable cuts, cooking yields were higher for the grilled shoulder, boneless lip-on ribeye, bone-in lip-on ribeye and Denver cut steaks than their braised or roasted counterparts (Tables 1 and 2). Conversely, cooking yields were lower for grilled chuck eye and tenderloin steaks than for corresponding roasted cuts (p < 0.001). Fat concentration was lower in roasted cuts than in grilled cuts and lower in grilled cuts than in braised cuts. For example, fat was 23% lower in two grilled steaks (shoulder and Denver cut) than in corresponding cuts that were braised (p < 0.001; Table 4). Conversely, percent fat was greater in three grilled steaks (chuck eye, tenderloin and bone-in lip-on ribeye) than in corresponding thicker roasted cuts (p < 0.05). Differences in results for comparisons of other cuts were not significant (Tables 4 and 5; Fig. 5).
Fig. 4. Effect of roasting and grilling on moisture, fat, and protein concentrations among cuts from chuck eye, ribeye, and tenderloin. For cuts prepared using the same cooking method, means that lack a common letter are significantly different (p < 0.05).
7
Fig. 5. Comparison of moisture, fat, and protein concentrations for pairs of roasts and steaks from chuck eye, ribeye, and tenderloin (p < 0.05). NS = not significant.
Grilled chuck eye and grilled tenderloin steaks had significantly lower moisture concentration than their corresponding roasted roasts (p > 0.001). Because roasting used a lower cooking temperature and resulted in a lower final internal temperature than grilling, these results confirm earlier findings (WahrmundWyle et al., 2000b) indicating that lower cooking temperature, lower final internal temperature, and, in some cases, increased total mass can limit the extent of moisture evaporation in beef cuts during cooking, resulting in higher moisture content. In contrast, moisture concentration was greater in grilled steaks (shoulder and Denver cut) than in the corresponding cuts that were braised (p < 0.001). The higher moisture concentration of grilled steaks compared to their braised counterparts could be attributed to the lower endpoint internal temperature used for grilling, thus limiting the amount of moisture lost during cooking despite the higher cooking temperature of grilling. The reason the braised cuts had the lowest cooking yield and greatest amount of moisture loss, even though water was added during braising, was presumably the increased level of doneness. Thus, prolonged exposure to heat to achieve the final internal temperature may have extracted more moisture from lean tissue during braising compared to the other cooking methods. Protein concentration was 8–9% higher in the cuts prepared by braising than in their grilled counterparts (p < 0.001), whereas protein concentration was 12% higher in grilled tenderloin steaks compared to its roasted counterpart (p < 0.001; Table 4). Other researchers reported similar trends, finding that beef cuts cooked to higher degrees of doneness, as with braising, had higher protein content (Smith et al., 2011; Wahrmund-Wyle et al., 2000b; West et al., 2014).
387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416
3.2.2. Comparisons of bone and lip status for ribeye cuts Effects of bone were more pronounced in grilled cuts than in roasted cuts (Tables 2 and 5). For example, grilled boneless lip-on ribeye steaks had more protein (23.7 g), less fat (21.8 g), higher moisture (54.5 g) concentration, and lower cooking yield (83%) than bone-in lip-on ribeye steaks with 23 g protein, 24.2 g fat and 85% cooking yield (p < 0.05). Boneless roasts had higher protein (24.3 g) concentration than corresponding bone-in roasts (23.4 g; p < 0.05), but fat concentrations and cooking yields were not significantly different between bone-in and boneless roasts. Protein (24.8 g) and moisture (55.5 g) concentrations were higher and fat (19.1 g) concentration was lower in lip-off steaks than in lip-on steaks (p < 0.01). No significant difference in cooking yield was observed between the two cuts.
417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430
Please cite this article in press as: Roseland, J.M., et al., Protein, fat, moisture and cooking yields from a U.S. study of retail beef cuts. J. Food Compos. Anal. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2015.04.013
G Model
YJFCA 2585 1–9 8
J.M. Roseland et al. / Journal of Food Composition and Analysis xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440
3.2.3. Comparison of fat trim levels The 0.0-cm fat trim steaks had higher protein (28.6 g) and moisture (60 g) and lower fat (11.2 g) concentrations than 0.32-cm (1/8-inch) trim steaks (p < 0.001; Table 6). No significant difference in cooking yield was observed (Table 3). The fat concentration comparison for this pair of cuts confirmed trends for steaks of 0.0-cm fat trim compared to 0.6-cm (1/4-inch) fat trim levels in a previous study (Jones et al., 1992b). However in this earlier study, the 0.0-cm fat trim steaks usually had higher cooking yields than the 0.6-cm (1/4-inch) fat trim steaks.
441 442 443 444 445
3.2.4. Comparison of thickness The 5.08 cm (2-inch)-thick braised under blade roasts had lower protein concentration (26.3 g), higher fat concentration (20.4 g), and higher cooking yield (67%) than the 2.54 cm (1-inch)thick braised steaks (p < 0.05; Tables 3 and 6).
446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494
3.2.5. Overall trends Among all cuts studied, grilled top loin steak with 0.32-cm (1/8inch) fat trim had the highest cooking yield (86%) and highest percent fat gain (3%), whereas the percentage of fat in most other cuts declined. Braised cuts had the lowest cooking yields (65–67%). The trend of lower yields for beef cuts cooked by braising has been attributed (Martin et al., 2013; West et al., 2014) to the higher endpoint (internal) temperature of braised cuts compared to roasted and grilled cuts. This relationship was observed in other studies of cooking methods or endpoint temperatures relative to beef cooking yields (Akinwunmi et al., 1993; Luchak et al., 1998; Smith et al., 2011; Wahrmund-Wyle et al., 2000a). Braised cuts in the current study also had the greatest moisture loss (29–32%) compared to grilled or roasted cuts. Other researchers have also noted decreasing moisture content in beef cuts associated with increased levels of doneness (Jones et al., 1992a; Martin et al., 2013; Modzelewska-Kapitula et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2011; Wahrmund-Wyle et al., 2000b), which pertains to braising compared to roasting or grilling. An inverse relationship between moisture and fat concentration was observed in all pairs of comparable cuts, regardless of cooking method or characteristic (such as bone or lip status), except boneless lip-on ribeye. This moisture and fat relationship is consistent with earlier findings (Duckett et al., 1993; Patten et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2011). For most paired cuts in this study, cooking yield was higher in cuts that had higher moisture concentration and lower percent moisture loss. The results generally showed associations between cooking methods and cooking yield, or between cooking methods and concentration of moisture, fat, or protein. An unexpected pattern was observed in the current study, where cooking yield was higher for ribeye steak (83%) than the corresponding roast (76%), whereas cooking yields were higher for roasts from chuck and loin than corresponding steaks (Fig. 3). The grilled ribeye steak’s higher yield was surprising because higher cooking temperatures and final internal temperatures, associated in these cases with grilling, are usually associated with lower cooking yields because of higher endpoint temperatures (Wahrmund-Wyle et al., 2000a). The results of this study were probably not influenced by the 0.32-cm (1/8-inch) fat trim on the rib cuts versus the 0.0-cm trim on the chuck and loin cuts because loin steaks with 0.32-cm (1/8-inch) fat trim showed no cooking yield differences compared to loin steaks with 0.0-cm trim. Instead, the unexpected finding in the current study could be attributed to ribeye’s composition because the fat and moisture concentrations of ribeye steak vs. roast were not significantly different. In contrast, the chuck and tenderloin steaks had higher fat concentrations and lower moisture concentrations than their respective roasts, which coincided with lower cooking yields than their corresponding
roasts (p < 0.05). Thus, the higher moisture concentrations in the chuck and tenderloin roasts, in addition to the lower endpoint temperature used for roasting, were associated with their higher cooking yields. This study showed patterns of protein, fat and moisture concentration among different cuts and cooking methods, but these patterns were not consistent among all comparisons. For example, roasted cuts, which were cooked to the lowest internal temperatures, sometimes, but not always, had higher moisture and fat concentrations and cooking yields than their respective grilled steaks, which had a higher cooking temperature and higher internal temperature. The variations found, such as the higher cooking yields in the grilled ribeye lip-on boneless and bone-in steaks compared to corresponding roasts, could be exceptions to the trends and possibly due, in part, to the unique physiological properties of cuts from different parts of the beef carcass. Another set of unexpected findings in the current study was the similar protein concentration for ribeye lip-on roasts and their grilled steak counterparts in boneless and bone-in pairs. This was surprising because protein and fat concentrations in this study were typically higher in grilled vs. roasted cuts and higher in braised vs. grilled cuts (p < 0.05). These trends were supported by a study of beef loin steaks (Smith et al., 2011) where percentage protein and fat increased when degree of doneness increased.
495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518
3.3. Database products resulting from this research
519
Researchers and other professionals can obtain accurate beef nutrition data generated from this study in three user-friendly resources available at http://www.ars.usda.gov/nutrientdata. First, SR has updated nutrient profiles for 32 retail cuts of beef with up to 12 profiles per cut, including profiles for raw, cooked, separable lean only, separable lean and fat, Choice, Select and ‘‘all grades’’ cuts. Second, USDA has published a document with cooking yield data for 45 beef items from the NDI study and for over 125 other meat and poultry items (Roseland et al., 2014). Third, the USDA Nutrient Data Set for Beef Retail Cuts provides nutritional data on 20 retail beef cuts for which nutrition labeling is required (Roseland et al., 2013).
520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531
4. Conclusions
532
The results of this study showed trends in cooking yield factors for retail beef cuts prepared by grilling, roasting and braising methods and by various cut characteristics. To a lesser extent, patterns were noted in fat, moisture and protein concentrations. The differences among various cuts of beef demonstrate the complexity of the factors that affect beef’s nutrient content. The magnitude of these differences between cuts was relatively small. Therefore, widespread nutrient analysis of beef cuts using numerous cooking methods may be impractical. However, this study demonstrates the importance of maintaining specific data for a variety of retail beef cuts to study nutritional properties of beef. Unique characteristics of cuts from different primals and cooking methods may affect nutrient composition. Thus, data for a variety of retail beef cuts can have value for researchers and consumers for detecting small nutrient content nuances. These cooking yield data provide valuable information regarding the impact of factors such as cooking method, size of cut and presence of bone on cooking yield as well as moisture and fat changes. These data are useful for making food preparation decisions, such as selecting techniques that maximize cooking yields. Nutrient data results from research such as this study can also help scientists determine the effects of beef consumption on health and assist dietitians and consumers in making wise choices.
533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555
Please cite this article in press as: Roseland, J.M., et al., Protein, fat, moisture and cooking yields from a U.S. study of retail beef cuts. J. Food Compos. Anal. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2015.04.013
G Model
YJFCA 2585 1–9 J.M. Roseland et al. / Journal of Food Composition and Analysis xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563
Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge the support of USDA colleagues Pamela R. Pehrsson, PhD, and Joanne M. Holden, MS, for enabling the completion of this research project; and the professional contributions of Marybeth Duvall, MS, Sue Douglass, MS, Debby Berlyne, PhD, and participating meat scientists from the three collaborating universities. This project was funded largely by Q4 the Beef Checkoff program. Q5
564
References
565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622
Acheson, R.J., 2013. Nutrient Composition and Sensory Attributes of Beef From Grain-finished Steers and Heifers (Ph.D. dissertation) Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. retrieved September 8, 2014 from: http://digitool.library. colostate.edu/R?RN=264641538. Ahuja, J.K., Moshfegh, A.J., Holden, J.M., Harris, E., 2013. USDA food and nutrient databases provide the infrastructure for food and nutrition research, policy, and practice. J. Nutr. 143 (2), 241S–249S. Akinwunmi, I., Thompson, L.D., Ramsey, C.B., 1993. Marbling, fat trim and doneness effects on sensory attributes, cooking loss and composition of cooked beef steaks. J. Food Sci. 58 (2), 242–244. AOAC, 1993. Removal of Moisture, Official Method 8.2.1.1, 16th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA. AOAC, 2006. Official Methods of Analysis, 18th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA. Asp, M.L., Richardson, J.R., Collene, A.L., Droll, K.R., Belury, M.A., 2012. Dietary protein and beef consumption predict for markers of muscle mass and nutrition status in older adults. J. Nutr. Health Aging 16 (9), 784–790. Bernstein, A.M., Sun, Q., Hu, F.B., Stampfer, M.J., Manson, J.E., Willett, W.C., 2010. Major dietary protein sources and risk of coronary heart disease in women. Circulation 122 (9), 876–883. Desimone, T.L., Acheson, R.A., Woerner, D.R., Engle, T.E., Douglass, L.W., Belk, K.E., 2013. Nutrient analysis of the Beef Alternative Merchandising cuts. Meat Sci. 93 (3), 733–745. Dixon, C.L., Woerner, D.R., Tokach, R.J., Chapman, P.L., Engle, T.E., Tatum, J.D., Belk, K.E., 2012. Quantifying the aging response and nutrient composition for muscles of the beef round. J. Anim. Sci. 90 (3), 996–1007. Duckett, S.K., Wagner, D.G., Yates, L.D., Dolezal, H.G., May, S.G., 1993. Effects of time on feed on beef nutrient composition. J. Anim. Sci. 71 (8), 2079–2088. Folch, J., Lees, M., Sloane Stanley, G.H., 1957. A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipides from animal tissues. J. Biol. Chem. 226 (1), 497–509. Garcia, L.G., Nicholson, K.L., Hoffman, T.W., Lawrence, T.E., Hale, D.S., Griffin, D.B., Savell, J.W., Vanoverbeke, D.L., Morgan, J.B., Belk, K.E., Field, T.G., Scanga, J.A., Tatum, J.D., Smith, G.C., 2008. National Beef Quality Audit-2005: survey of targeted cattle and carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 86 (12), 3533–3543. Garrett, W.N., Hinman, N., 1971. Fat content of trimmed beef muscles as influenced by quality grade, yield grade, marbling score and sex. J. Anim. Sci. 33 (5), 948–957. Hiza, H.A.B., Bente, L., 2011. Content of the U.S. food supply: developments between 2000–2006, home economics research report number. retrieved August 6, 2014 from: http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/publications/foodsupply/final_ foodsupplyreport_2006.pdf. Jones, D.K., Savell, J.W., Cross, H.R., 1992a. Effects of fat trim on the composition of beef retail cuts – 2. Fat and moisture content of the separable lean. J. Muscle Foods 3 (1), 57–71. Jones, O.K., Savell, J.W., Cross, H.R., 1992b. Effects of fat trim on the composition of beef retail cuts – 3. Cooking yields and fat retention of the separable lean. J. Muscle Foods 3 (1), 73–81. Leheska, J.M., Thompson, L.D., Howe, J.C., Hentges, E., Boyce, J., Brooks, J.C., Shriver, B., Hoover, L., Miller, M.F., 2008. Effects of conventional and grass-feeding systems on the nutrient composition of beef. J. Anim. Sci. 86 (12), 3575–3585. Luchak, G.L., Miller, R.K., Belk, K.E., Hale, D.S., Michaelsen, S.A., Johnson, D.D., West, R.L., Leak, F.W., Cross, H.R., Savell, J.W., 1998. Determination of sensory, chemical and cooking characteristics of retail beef cuts differing in intramuscular and external fat. Meat Sci. 50 (1), 55–72. Martin, J.N., Brooks, J.C., Thompson, L.D., Savell, J.W., Harris, K.B., May, L.L., Haneklaus, A.N., Schutz, J.L., Belk, K.E., Engle, T., Woerner, D.R., Legako, J.F., Luna, A.M., Douglass, L.W., Douglass, S.E., Howe, J., Duvall, M., Patterson, K.Y., Leheska, J.L., 2013. Nutrient database improvement project: the influence of U.S.D.A. Quality
9
and Yield Grade on the separable components and proximate composition of raw and cooked retail cuts from the beef rib and plate. Meat Sci. 95 (3), 486–494. McAfee, A.J., McSorley, E.M., Cuskelly, G.J., Moss, B.W., Wallace, J.M., Bonham, M.P., Fearon, A.M., 2010. Red meat consumption: an overview of the risks and benefits. Meat Sci. 84 (1), 1–13. McNeill, S., Van Elswyk, M.E., 2012. Red meat in global nutrition. Meat Sci. 92 (3), 166–173. McNeill, S.H., Harris, K.B., Field, T.G., Van Elswyk, M.E., 2012. The evolution of lean beef: identifying lean beef in today’s U.S. marketplace. Meat Sci. 90 (1), 1–8. Melanson, K., Gootman, J., Myrdal, A., Kline, G., Rippe, J.M., 2003. Weight loss and total lipid profile changes in overweight women consuming beef or chicken as the primary protein source. Nutrition 19 (5), 409–414. Merchant, A.T., Dehghan, M., 2006. Food composition database development for between country comparisons. Nutr. J. 5, 2. Modzelewska-Kapitula, M., Dabrowska, E., Jankowska, B., Kwiatkowska, A., Cierach, M., 2012. The effect of muscle, cooking method and final internal temperature on quality parameters of beef roast. Meat Sci. 91 (2), 195–202. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, 2013. Retail Beef Cuts Poster. retrieved January 13, 2015 from: http://www.beefretail.org/beefcutcharts.aspx. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, 2014. Lean Matters: Chronicling Beef’s Change From Gate to Plate – A Distinctive Public–Private Collaboration. retrieved August 6, 2014 from: http://www.beefissuesquarterly.com/CMDocs/ BeefResearch/Nutrition/LeanMatters_Web.pdf. Patten, L.E., Hodgen, J.M., Stelzleni, A.M., Calkins, C.R., Johnson, D.D., Gwartney, B.L., 2008. Chemical properties of cow and beef muscles: benchmarking the differences and similarities. J. Anim. Sci. 86 (8), 1904–1916. Phillips, K.M., Patterson, K.Y., Rasor, A.S., Exler, J., Haytowitz, D.B., Holden, J.M., Pehrsson, P.R., 2006. Quality-control materials in the USDA National Food and Nutrient Analysis Program (NFNAP). Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 384 (6), 1341–1355. Roseland, J.M., Nguyen, Q.V., Williams, J.R., Patterson, K.Y., 2013. USDA Nutrient Data Set for Retail Beef Cuts From SR, Release 3.0. retrieved August 6, 2014 from: http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12354500/Data/Beef/Retail_ Beef_Cuts03.pdf. Roseland, J.M., Nguyen, Q.V., Williams, J.R., Patterson, K.Y., Showell, B.A., Pehrsson, P.R., 2014. USDA Table of Cooking Yields for Meat and Poultry, Release 2. retrieved September 30, 2014 from: http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/ Place/12354500/Data/retn/USDA_CookingYields_MeatPoultry02.pdf. Roussell, M.A., Hill, A.M., Gaugler, T.L., West, S.G., Heuvel, J.P., Alaupovic, P., Gillies, P.J., Kris-Etherton, P.M., 2012. Beef in an optimal lean diet study: effects on lipids, lipoproteins, and apolipoproteins. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 95 (1), 9–16. Roussell, M.A., Hill, A.M., Gaugler, T.L., West, S.G., Ulbrecht, J.S., Vanden Heuvel, J.P., Gillies, P.J., Kris-Etherton, P.M., 2014. Effects of a DASH-like diet containing lean beef on vascular health. J. Hum. Hypertens. 28 (10), 600–605. SAS Institute Inc., 2011. SAS OnlineDoc1 9.3. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC. Savell, J.W., Harris, J.J., Cross, H.R., Hale, D.S., Beasley, L.C., 1991. National beef market basket survey. J. Anim. Sci. 69 (7), 2883–2893. Sinha, R., Cross, A.J., Graubard, B.I., Leitzmann, M.F., Schatzkin, A., 2009. Meat intake and mortality: a prospective study of over half a million people. Archiv. Intern. Med. 169 (6), 562–571. Smith, A.M., Harris, K.B., Haneklaus, A.N., Savell, J.W., 2011. Proximate composition and energy content of beef steaks as influenced by USDA quality grade and degree of doneness. Meat Sci. 89 (2), 228–232. Smith, D.R., Savell, J.W., Smith, S.B., Cross, H.R., 1989. Fatty acid and proximate composition of raw and cooked retail cuts of beef trimmed to different external fat levels. Meat Sci. 26 (4), 295–311. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2014. Livestock & Meat Domestic Data. retrieved September 23, 2014 from: http://www.ers.usda.gov/ data-products/livestock-meat-domestic-data.aspx#.VCGAovldX9U. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010, 7th ed. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Wahrmund-Wyle, J.L., Harris, K.B., Savell, J.W., 2000a. Beef retail cut composition: 1. Separable tissue components. J. Food Compos. Anal. 13 (3), 233–242. Wahrmund-Wyle, J.L., Harris, K.B., Savell, J.W., 2000b. Beef retail cut composition: 2. Proximate analysis. J. Food Compos. Anal. 13 (3), 243–251. West, S.E., Harris, K.B., Haneklaus, A.N., Savell, J.W., Thompson, L.D., Brooks, J.C., Pool, J.K., Luna, A.M., Engle, T.E., Schutz, J.S., Woerner, D.R., Arcibeque, S.L., Belk, K.E., Douglass, L., Leheska, J.M., McNeill, S., Howe, J.C., Holden, J.M., Duvall, M., Patterson, K., 2014. Nutrient database improvement project: the influence of USDA quality and yield grade on the separable components and proximate composition of raw and cooked retail cuts from the beef chuck. Meat Sci. 97 (4), 558–567. Zanovec, M., O’Neil, C.E., Keast, D.R., Fulgoni III, V.L., Nicklas, T.A., 2010. Lean beef contributes significant amounts of key nutrients to the diets of U.S. adults: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999–2004. Nutr. Res. 30 (6), 375–381.
Please cite this article in press as: Roseland, J.M., et al., Protein, fat, moisture and cooking yields from a U.S. study of retail beef cuts. J. Food Compos. Anal. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2015.04.013
623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697
YJFCA 2585 1–9 Journal of Food Composition and Analysis xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Journal of Food Composition and Analysis journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jfca 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15
Original Research Article
Protein, fat, moisture and cooking yields from a U.S. study of retail beef cuts M. Roseland a,*, Quynhanh V. Nguyen a, Juhi R. Williams a, Larry W. Douglass b, Kristine Y. Patterson a, Juliette C. Howe c, J. Chance Brooks d, Leslie D. Thompson d, Dale R. Woerner e, Terry E. Engle e, Jeffrey W. Savell f, Kerri B. Gehring f, Amy M. Cifelli g, Shalene H. McNeill g
Q1 Janet
Q2 a U.S. Department of Agriculture, Nutrient Data Laboratory, 10300 Baltimore Avenue Building 005, Beltsville, MD 20705, United States b
Private Consultant, 742 Sanctuary Lane, Longmont, CO 80504, United States Private Consultant, 7800 LaSalle Court, Severn, MD 21144, United States d TexasTech University, Department of Animal and Food Sciences, Box 42141, Lubbock, TX 79409, United States e Colorado State University, Center for Meat Safety and Quality, Department of Animal Sciences, Campus Delivery 1170, Fort Collins, CO 80523, United States f Texas A&M University, Department of Animal Science, Room 133 Kleberg, 2471 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843, United States g National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (Contractor to the Beef Checkoff), 9110 East Nichols Avenue, Suite 300, Centennial, CO 80112, United States c
A R T I C L E I N F O
A B S T R A C T
Article history: Received 30 September 2014 Received in revised form 23 April 2015 Accepted 24 April 2015 Available online xxx
Nutrient data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) are an important resource for U.S. and international databases. To ensure that data for retail beef cuts in USDA’s National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference (SR) are current, a comprehensive, nationwide, multi-phase study was conducted. Samples were collected and analyzed in three phases based on primal category. Using a statistically based sampling plan, 72 beef carcasses per phase were obtained with nationally representative quality and yield grades, genders and genetic types. Retail cuts were fabricated, cooked and dissected to obtain component weights. Nutrient values were determined by validated laboratories using quality assurance procedures. Full nutrient profiles were made available in SR (http://www.ars.usda.gov/nutrientdata). Results for 16 beef retail cuts were compared for cooking yield and protein, fat and moisture concentrations. For example, cooked fat levels differed among three roasted cuts and among three grilled cuts from chuck, rib and loin (p < 0.01). Cooking yield for roasted ribeye (76%) was lower (p < 0.001) than for grilled ribeye (83%) or for chuck eye grilled (80%) or roasted (84%). This study demonstrates the importance of maintaining data for a variety of retail beef cuts due to their unique properties and different cooking methods. Published by Elsevier Inc.
Keywords: Beef Chuck Rib Loin Grill Roast Braise Proximate data Food analysis Food composition Food processing
16 17 18 19
1. Introduction
20 21 22
The prominence of beef in U.S. diets is evidenced by the estimated 56.3 pounds (25.5 kg) of beef consumed annually per capita (U.S. Department of Agriculture and Economic Research
Service, 2014). Some observational data have suggested links between consumption of red meat, including beef, and increased risk of stroke, heart disease and diabetes (Bernstein et al., 2010; Sinha et al., 2009). However, the ‘‘Beef in an Optimal Lean Diet’’ study (Roussell et al., 2012) indicated that diets including
Abbreviations: CVD, cardiovascular disease; USDA, U.S. Department of Agriculture; SR, USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference; NDL, Nutrient Data Laboratory; NDI, Nutrient Database Improvement; QC, quality control; EP, edible portion. * Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 301 504 0715; fax: +1 301 504 0632. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J.M. Roseland), [email protected] (Q.V. Nguyen), [email protected] (J.R. Williams), [email protected] (L.W. Douglass), [email protected] (K.Y. Patterson), [email protected] (J.C. Howe), [email protected] (J.C. Brooks), [email protected] (L.D. Thompson), [email protected] (D.R. Woerner), [email protected] (T.E. Engle), [email protected] (J.W. Savell), [email protected] (K.B. Gehring), [email protected] (A.M. Cifelli), [email protected] (S.H. McNeill). http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2015.04.013 0889-1575/Published by Elsevier Inc.
Please cite this article in press as: Roseland, J.M., et al., Protein, fat, moisture and cooking yields from a U.S. study of retail beef cuts. J. Food Compos. Anal. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2015.04.013
23 24 25 26 27
G Model
YJFCA 2585 1–9 J.M. Roseland et al. / Journal of Food Composition and Analysis xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
2
28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85
3–5 ounces (85–142 g) of lean beef per day lessened cardiovascular disease (CVD) risk (Roussell et al., 2014). Other investigations have also shown that lean red meat is unlikely to increase the risk of CVD or colon cancer (McAfee et al., 2010) or of weight gain (Melanson et al., 2003). Furthermore, red meat consumption can improve nutritional status (Asp et al., 2012) and reduce the risk of noncommunicable diseases worldwide (McNeill and Van Elswyk, 2012). Up-to-date nutrient data for U.S. beef cuts are essential to enable researchers to accurately evaluate beef’s role in health and to inform consumers about making healthy selections. Despite evidence of beef’s value and popularity (McNeill et al., 2012; Zanovec et al., 2010) as well as dietary recommendations supporting lean meat consumption (U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010), per capita U.S. beef consumption decreased by 32.2% from 1970 to 2013 (U.S. Department of Agriculture and Economic Research Service, 2014). This decline might have been due, in part, to an outdated perception of beef as being high in fat and cholesterol (McNeill et al., 2012). Contradicting popular perceptions, the fat content of retail beef cuts declined over the past four decades (McNeill et al., 2012; National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, 2014) due to reduced fat trim on marketed cuts (Hiza and Bente, 2011), leaner cattle breeds and improved animal husbandry practices. Therefore, communicating these changes to the public became critical. Beef nutrient data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) have been available since 1926. The USDA issues updates on an ongoing basis, based upon research such as the study described in this report, to reflect nutrient content of beef cuts (Desimone et al., 2013; Dixon et al., 2012; Leheska et al., 2008; Savell et al., 1991; Smith et al., 1989; Wahrmund-Wyle et al., 2000a). The USDA’s dataset, the National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference (SR), is the major source of U.S. nutrient data. The Nutrient Data Laboratory (NDL) maintains SR, which plays a crucial role in regulations and provides the scientific basis for research and dietary practice in the United States (Ahuja et al., 2013) and abroad (Merchant and Dehghan, 2006). Factors such as cooking temperature, portion size and final internal temperature can influence cooking yield, amount of moisture and fat change due to cooking, and amount of fat and moisture in the cooked cut. Since the 1950s, USDA has released cooking yield tables describing changes in food weight due to moisture loss, water absorption, or fat gains or losses during preparation (Roseland et al., 2014). These data are used by researchers to estimate cooked nutrient values based on raw values and by consumers to determine amounts to purchase. This report provides statistical data comparisons from an indepth nationally representative beef research study, showing similarities and significant differences in moisture, protein, fat and cooking yields among specific retail beef cuts. These comparisons, made according to cut characteristics and cooking methods, provide a basis for understanding connections between factors that affect the nutrient composition of meat. The purpose of this report is to compare data for nutrients and for cooking yields for chuck, rib and loin cuts from three phases of a comprehensive beef study, and to discuss implications and applications to meat science.
86
2. Materials and methods
87
2.1. Study procedures
88 89 90
To provide up-to-date data for different U.S. beef cuts, a comprehensive multi-phase research study was designed and conducted through collaboration among scientists at NDL,
Colorado State University, Texas A & M University, Texas Tech University and the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. The multi-phase nature of the study had three parts, with each part consisting of one or two specific primals and done in consecutive years. Separate phases were necessary to allow sufficient time for personnel to process carcasses for obtaining all of the specified cuts for the study. This Nutrient Database Improvement (NDI) study was funded largely by the Beef Checkoff program. The NDI study obtained analytical values for 32 cuts covering a wide array of nutrients, and various aspects of the study have been reported (Martin et al., 2013; West et al., 2014). This report compares protein, fat, moisture and cooking yields for 16 of the beef cuts from the study, from the chuck, loin and round primals of the beef carcass (Fig. 1). To address specific hypotheses, ten paired comparisons were made among the 16 cuts (Tables 1 and 2). Most of these hypotheses involved comparisons between cooking methods. For example, cuts fabricated as steaks, which were grilled, were compared to corresponding roasts. These comparisons included chuck eye, tenderloin, shoulder and ribeye boneless and bone-in lip-on cuts. Comparisons were also made of the effects of alternative fabrications, such as bone-in vs. boneless; fat trim levels as 0.0cm vs. 0.32-cm (0.0-inch vs.1/8-inch); thickness as 2.54-cm vs. 5.1cm (1-inch vs. 2-inch); and lip-on vs. lip-off (tail end of ribeye muscle). The chuck under blade and Denver cut steaks were paired for comparison because Denver cut is fabricated using the serratus ventralis muscle from the under blade steak, which is comprised of several muscles. Fig. 2 illustrates the major steps used to conduct the NDI study (National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, 2014). The research team established protocols for each major aspect of the study. Detailed procedures were especially crucial to ensure consistency due to the size and scope of the study and because it was implemented at several sites in three main phases over five years. Retail cuts from chuck and brisket were analyzed in Phase 1, rib and plate in Phase 2, and loin and round in Phase 3. This paper includes results from all phases for seven cuts from the chuck, five rib cuts and four loin cuts.
91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128
2.2. Sampling plan and sample acquisition
129
A statistical sampling plan was developed to obtain up to 72 beef carcasses (36 pairs) per phase. Samples were obtained from major U.S. packing plants in the following cities: Green Bay, Wisconsin; Greeley, Colorado; Dodge City, Kansas; Tolleson, Arizona; Omaha, Nebraska; Plainview, Texas; and Corpus Christi, Texas. Each collaborating university obtained beef carcasses from packing plants in two states. Carcasses were chosen to be nationally representative for the following criteria, based upon the National Quality Beef Audit containing data on characteristics of U.S. fed cattle (Garcia et al., 2008):
130 131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140
Quality grade: 67% USDA Choice (50% Upper Choice and 50% Lower Choice) and 33% USDA Select
142 143 144
Fig. 1. Beef primal cuts (National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, 2013).
Please cite this article in press as: Roseland, J.M., et al., Protein, fat, moisture and cooking yields from a U.S. study of retail beef cuts. J. Food Compos. Anal. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2015.04.013
G Model
YJFCA 2585 1–9 J.M. Roseland et al. / Journal of Food Composition and Analysis xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
3
Table 1 Effects of cut and cooking method on percent cooking yield, fat change, and moisture change for comparable beef cuts by cooking method and size. Cut
Fabrication
Cooking method
Bone status
Cooking temperature/final internal temperature (8C)
Trim (cm)
N
% Cooking yield (SEM)
% Fat change (SEM)
% Moisture change (SEM)
Chuck eye Chuck eye
Roast Steak
Roasted Grilled
Boneless Boneless
160/60 195/70
0.0 0.0
36 36
Ribeye lip-on Ribeye lip-on
Roast Steak
Roasted Grilled
Boneless Boneless
160/60 195/70
0.32 0.32
36 36
Tenderloin Tenderloin
Roast Steak
Roasted Grilled
Boneless Boneless
160/60 195/70
0.0 0.0
36 36
Shoulder Shoulder
Roast Steak
Braised Grilled
Boneless Boneless
120/85 195/70
0.0 0.0
36 36
Under blade Denver cut (serratus ventralis)
Steak Steak
Braised Grilled
Boneless Boneless
120/85 195/70
0.0 0.0
36 36
84a(0.64) 80b(0.64) p < 0.001 76c(0.64) 83a(0.64) p < 0.001 82b(0.64) 78b(0.64) p < 0.001 66(0.64) 78(0.64) p < 0.001 65(0.65) 75(0.68)
0.6b(0.49) 0.6b(0.48) p = 0.1 3.2a(0.52) 1.9a(0.41) p = 0.06 0.4b(0.21) 0.4b(0.21) p = 1.0 0.5(0.25) 0.0(0.16) p = 0.03 1.0(0.90) 2.0(0.46)
18.5b(0.86) 18.2b(0.74) p = 0.09 21.3a(0.46) 18.3b(0.91) p = 0.01 21.3a(0.33) S28.4a(0.50) p < 0.001 S32.3(0.75) 23.5(0.58) p < 0.001 29.3(1.54) 24.3(0.76)
p < 0.001
p = 0.4
p = 0.01
For cuts prepared using the same cooking method, means followed by the same letter (a, b, or c) are not significantly different (p < 0.05). For paired cuts, bold-face indicates the greater cooking yield, or the fat and moisture change with the greater loss (p < 0.05). SEM indicates standard error of the mean.
146 145 147 148 149 150
Yield grade: 50% USDA Yield Grade 2 and 50% USDA Yield Grade 3 Gender: 67% steers and 33% heifers Genetic type: 11.1% dairy and 88.9% non-dairy
151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 159 160
Carcasses that met the same selection criteria were paired to allow for alternative fabrication procedures (e.g. bone-in vs. boneless) and to obtain adequate quantities for analysis for some cuts. Additional details on carcass selection are available elsewhere (Acheson, 2013; Martin et al., 2013; West et al., 2014). The research team selected beef cuts for the NDI study that met one or more of these criteria: (1) represented a significant percentage of the U.S. market share for beef, (2) required nutrition labeling, and/or (3) needed updated data because amount of fat trim had decreased or because of other market trends.
161
2.3. Retail cut fabrication
162 163 164 165 166 167
Carcasses were fabricated by the study team into subprimals and shipped to the respective universities. Qualified laboratory personnel fabricated the subprimals into the retail cuts required for the NDI study within 14–21 days postmortem. Steaks were fabricated to thickness of 2.54 cm, except tenderloin steaks which were 3.81 cm. Mean weights of the roasts ranged from 620 g
(tenderloin) to 2627 g (ribeye bone-in lip-on). Additional fabrication details have been reported elsewhere for rib and plate (Martin et al., 2013), chuck (West et al., 2014), and loin and round (Acheson, 2013). Retail cuts were labeled, vacuum packaged and frozen until they were cooked or dissected.
168 169 170 171 172
2.4. Sample dissection and cooking
173
Frozen raw samples were tempered through refrigeration to an internal temperature of 0–5 8C before being cooked and dissected. Components for each cut were identified; separable lean, separable fat, and refuse were weighed (to the nearest 0.1 g) before and after cooking. ‘‘Separable lean’’, which included fat striations (marbling) within the muscle, was defined as muscle tissue that could be readily separated from fat, bone and heavy connective tissue. ‘‘Separable fat’’ was the intermuscular or ‘‘seam’’ fat deposited between muscles plus external trim fat on the outer surface of the cut. ‘‘Refuse’’ was the bone and heavy connective tissue. Intermuscular fat and external trim fat amounts were recorded as two separate types of fat and were frozen for later homogenization and analysis. The retail cuts were cooked using NDI protocols, which are in agreement with industry guidelines and are appropriate for each
174 175 176 177 178 179 180 181 182 183 184 185 186 187 188
Table 2 Effects of cut and cooking method on percent cooking yield, fat change, and moisture change for comparable ribeye cuts by cooking method, bone status, and lip status. Cut
Fabrication
Cooking method
Bone status
Cooking temperature/final internal temperature (8C)
Trim (cm)
N
% Cooking yield (SEM)
% Fat change (SEM)
% Moisture change (SEM)
Ribeye lip-on Ribeye lip-on
Roast Steak
Roasted Grilled
Bone-in Bone-in
160/60 195/70
0.32 0.32
36 36
Ribeye lip-on Ribeye lip-on
Roast Steak
Roasted Grilled
Boneless Boneless
160/60 195/70
0.32 0.32
36 36
Ribeye lip-off
Steak
Grilled
Boneless
195/70
0.32
36
77a(0.65) 85a(0.64) p < 0.001 76a(0.64) 83bx(0.64) p < 0.001 82x(0.64) p = 0.09
S3.4a(0.45) 2.0a(0.40) p = 0.03 3.2a(0.52) 1.9ax(0.41) p = 0.06 2.1x(0.29) p = 0.7
18.0b(0.36) 17.0a(0.53) p = 0.2 S21.3a(0.46) 18.3ax(0.91) p = 0.009 19.7x(0.34) p = 0.2
For bone-in vs. boneless cuts prepared using the same cooking method, means followed by the same letter (a or b) are not significantly different (p < 0.05). For lip-on vs. lip-off cuts prepared using the same cooking method, means followed by the same letter (x) are not significantly different (p < 0.05). Within bone-in pairs and within boneless pairs, bold-face indicates the greater cooking yield, or the fat and moisture change with the greater loss (p < 0.05). SEM indicates standard error of the mean.
Please cite this article in press as: Roseland, J.M., et al., Protein, fat, moisture and cooking yields from a U.S. study of retail beef cuts. J. Food Compos. Anal. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2015.04.013
G Model
YJFCA 2585 1–9 J.M. Roseland et al. / Journal of Food Composition and Analysis xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
4
Nutrient Database Improvement Research Protocol Phase 1: Beef Chuck • Phase 2: Beef Rib and Plate Cuts • Phase 3: Beef Loin and Round Packing Plant Collection 7 different plants nationally representative, 164 representative carcasses collected University Colorado State University, Texas A&M University, Texas Tech
Dissection (Raw) Separable lean, fat and refuse
Fabricated to Retail Cut Specifications 30 different cuts evaluated
Cooking Braised, grilled or roasted
Dissection (Cooked) Separable lean, fat and refuse
Homogenized/Aliquots/Storage Homogenized - samples were combined and mixed to equalize the composition throughout.
Proximates To determine: % of moisture, crude protein, total lipid
Send Data to NDL and Statistician Nutrition research
Composite University samples combined to provide uniformity
Ship to Compositor Samples from all universities sent to one location
Ship for Nutrient Analysis % of moisture, total fat, protein, fatty acids, cholesterol, conjugated linoleic acid, minerals, B-vitamins, choline, vitamin E, vitamin D
Backup & Archive (by Animal)
Aliquots (Samples,Backups, Archives)
Fig. 2. NDI research protocols for sample acquisition, fabrication, dissection, cooking, nutrient analysis, and statistical data analysis.
189 190 191 192
cut. The cooking procedures used, which are summarized below, have been previously described (Acheson, 2013; Martin et al., 2013; West et al., 2014). The cooking procedures were as follows:
195 194 196 197 198 199 200 201 202 203 204 205 206 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 216 217 218 219 220 221 222
Grilling: Weighed samples were cooked to an internal temperature of 70 8C (158 8F) in Salton two-sided electric grills (Model GRP99, Salton Incorporated, Lake Forest, IL, USA) that had been preheated to 195 8C (383 8F), and were then removed from the grill using tongs or spatulas. Final internal temperatures and cooked weights were recorded immediately. Roasting: Weighed samples were placed on a rack in an uncovered, non-stick anodized aluminum roasting pan (Calphalon Corporation, Toledo, OH, USA) without additional oil or water. The samples were roasted in a preheated 160 8C (325 8F) conventional oven to 60 8C (140 8F) internal temperature, then removed from the oven, and the rise in internal temperature was monitored. The highest temperature reached (immediately before it began dropping) was recorded as the final internal temperature. Final cooked weights were recorded after a 30-min rest period at room temperature. Braising: Weighed samples were browned in a preheated Dutch oven (Calphalon Corporation, Toledo, OH, USA). A small amount of distilled deionized water was added, and the volume of that water was recorded. The samples simmered in the covered Dutch oven in a preheated 120 8C (250 8F) oven until they achieved an internal temperature of 85 8C (185 8F). After the Dutch oven was removed from the heat, the rise in internal temperature was monitored. The highest internal temperature and the volume of remaining cooking liquid were recorded, and sample weights were recorded after a 30-min rest period.
223 224
During cooking, internal temperatures were monitored using a thermocouple placed in the geometric center or thickest portion of
the meat piece. For small or thin cuts, the thermocouple was periodically used during cooking. Samples were chilled for at least 12 h after cooking before further dissection.
225 226 227
2.5. Nutrient analysis
228
All separable lean and fat, both raw and cooked for each cut, was frozen with liquid nitrogen and homogenized for each of the 36 animal replicates. For the analyses described in this report, each sample was analyzed in duplicate for protein, fat, moisture and ash at one of the three university laboratories. Each laboratory underwent a qualifying process overseen by NDL to be approved for analyzing the selected nutrients. Laboratory methods were as follows. Protein was measured by combustion using AOAC method 992.15 (AOAC, 2006), total fat by chloroform-methanol extraction (Folch et al., 1957), moisture by oven drying methods AOAC 950.46 and 934.01 (AOAC, 1993), and ash by the AOAC ash oven method 923.03 or 920.15 (AOAC, 1993). Additional details on homogenization and analytical processes, as well as protein, fat, moisture and ash composition associated with Select and Choice quality grades for cuts from each phase, have been previously published (Acheson, 2013; Martin et al., 2013; West et al., 2014).
229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 239 240 241 242 243 244 245
2.6. Quality control
246
Quality control (QC) samples were included in each batch of 10– 20 samples. These materials included a certified reference material (Standard Reference Material 1546, Meat Homogenate, from the National Institute of Standards and Technology) or secondary materials that had been characterized through concurrent analysis of certified reference materials. Blind duplicates were randomly included along with the unknown samples.
247 248 249 250 251 252 253
Please cite this article in press as: Roseland, J.M., et al., Protein, fat, moisture and cooking yields from a U.S. study of retail beef cuts. J. Food Compos. Anal. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2015.04.013
G Model
YJFCA 2585 1–9 J.M. Roseland et al. / Journal of Food Composition and Analysis xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
254 255 256 257 258 259 260
The data results from QC materials for protein, moisture, ash and fat underwent a rigorous review using NDL’s data quality evaluation process (Phillips et al., 2006). Values for each sample’s protein, fat, moisture and ash were checked to ensure that their sum approximated 100%, although a small amount of difference (2%) was allowed due to analytical variability. Based on the QC results, a small percentage of samples (<10%) were reanalyzed.
261
2.7. Cooking yield measures
262 263 264
Pre- and post-cooking weights were used to calculate cooking yields based on the weights of each initial (raw) and final hot Q3 cooked (ckd) cut using this formula:
265 Yield % ¼ 268 267 266 269 270 271 272 273 274 275
ðckd sample ckd weightÞ 100 ðckd sample raw weightÞ
The change in nutrient weight between raw and cooked products for the edible portion (EP) of each cut was used to estimate changes in moisture and fat content during cooking. The equation below was used to calculate the percentage moisture (water) change, where EP refers to edible portion weight. The equation used for % fat change was the same, except that fat values were substituted for water values. ½ðg water ckd EP=100 g ckd EPÞ g ckd EP ½ðg water raw EP=100 g raw EPÞ g raw EP g raw cut as marketed
276 278 277 279 280 281 282 283 284
Note: In calculations of percentage of moisture and fat change, EP comprised lean and fat portions of the cut. The equation used to calculate changes in fat content was the same as that used to calculate changes in moisture content, except that fat values were substituted for moisture (water) values. The percent change for moisture or fat could be positive or negative, indicating a gain or loss, respectively.
285
2.8. Statistical analysis
286 287 288 289 290 291 292 293 294 295 296 297 298
A mean of the analytical data that met NDL’s quality criteria was computed for each animal (or pair of animals), cut, cooking method and dependent variable. Genetic type and gender factors were combined into a single factor, genetics/gender, which had three possible combinations – non-dairy/steer, non-dairy/heifer and dairy/steer. Cut and cooking method were also combined into a single factor. Sixteen cut/ cooking method combinations were possible. The mixed model included quality grade, genetics/gender, yield grade, cut/cooking method and all two-factor interactions with quality grade; these two-factor interactions were defined as fixed effects (SAS Institute Inc., 2011). Contrasts were used to partition the variability associated with cut/cooking method into cut,
5
cooking method and the cooking method cut interaction. Random effects were defined as animal within phase, quality grade, genetics/gender and yield grade as the variance for comparison of cuts from different animals. The residual accounted for random variation among cuts from the same animal. Goodnessof-fit statistics were used to identify the final model for fitting heterogeneous variance if such a model fit the data better. Least-square means and estimates were weighted so that nationally representative target percentages for quality grades, yield grades, genders and genetics were achieved, and cuts were equally weighted. Means were averaged across these criteria to obtain an ‘‘all-grade’’ mean. Among the 16 cuts studied, one set of 6 cuts formed a 2 3 factorial for cooking method cut to compare roasted roasts and grilled steaks from three different primals. Another set formed a 2 2 factorial for cooking method bone to compare ribeye cuts with or without bone. Contrasts were used to examine these main effects and interactions in addition to the planned pairwise comparisons. The significance of all paired comparisons among the 16 cuts was based on Student’s t probabilities. Where letters are used within tables or figures in this report to indicate significant differences, the tests were conducted at the p = 0.05 level of significance. Where probabilities are reported within the text, specific probability levels are given as appropriate.
299 300 301 302 303 304 305 306 307 308 309 310 311 312 313 314 315 316 317 318 319 320 321 322 323
3. Results and discussion
324
The effects of cut and cooking method on cooking yield factors are expressed as a percentage of each cut’s as-purchased raw to cooked weight (Tables 1–3). The effects of cut and cooking method on protein, fat and moisture concentration are expressed as a percentage (g/100 g) of each cut’s total edible lean and separable fat (Tables 4–6). Different combinations of cooking methods and cuts had different effects on percent cooking yield; percent fat and moisture change; and protein, fat and moisture concentrations. While some effects were significant (p < 0.05), others were not. For all cuts in this report, protein and fat concentrations were higher and moisture concentration was lower after cooking, as expected. All cuts lost moisture and most lost fat during cooking. Percent moisture loss was greater than percent fat loss in each cut during cooking, resulting in a higher concentration of fat and other nutrients in cooked cuts compared to raw cuts (Acheson, 2013; Garrett and Hinman, 1971; Martin et al., 2013; West et al., 2014).
325 326 327 328 329 330 331 332 333 334 335 336 337 338 339 340 341
3.1. Comparisons of loin, chuck, and rib roast and steak cuts by cooking method
342 343
Cooking yields were different among the three roasted cuts (Table 1 and Fig. 3, p < 0.05). Yields were highest for chuck eye (84%) and tenderloin (82%) as compared to ribeye (76%). Among
344 345 346
Table 3 Effects of cut and cooking method on percent cooking yield, fat change, and moisture change for comparable beef cuts by fat trim and size. Cut
Fabrication
Cooking method
Bone status
Cooking temperature/final internal temperature (8C)
Trim (cm)
N
% Cooking yield (SEM)
% Fat change (SEM)
% Moisture change (SEM)
Toploin Toploin
Steak Steak
Grilled Grilled
Boneless Boneless
195/70 195/70
0.0 0.32
36 36
Under blade Under blade
Roast Steak
Braised Braised
Boneless Boneless
120/85 120/85
0.0 0.0
36 36
85(0.64) 86(0.64) p = 0.3 67(0.67) 65(0.65) p = 0.04
S1.8(0.32) 3.0(0.31) p < 0.001 0.4(0.91) 1.0(0.90) p = 0.3
19.7(0.36) S21.9(0.41) p < 0.001 29.4(1.38) 29.3(1.54) p = 1.0
For paired cuts, bold-face indicates the greater cooking yield, or the fat and moisture change with the greater loss (p < 0.05). SEM indicates standard error of the mean.
Please cite this article in press as: Roseland, J.M., et al., Protein, fat, moisture and cooking yields from a U.S. study of retail beef cuts. J. Food Compos. Anal. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2015.04.013
G Model
YJFCA 2585 1–9 J.M. Roseland et al. / Journal of Food Composition and Analysis xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
6
Table 4 Effects of cut and cooking method on fat, moisture, and protein concentration (g/100 g) for comparable beef cuts by cooking method and size. Cut
Fabrication
Cooking method
Bone status
Cooking temperature/final internal temperature (8C)
Trim (cm)
N
Fat (SEM)
Moisture (SEM)
Protein (SEM)
Chuck eye Chuck eye
Roast Steak
Roasted Grilled
Boneless Boneless
160/60 195/70
0.0 0.0
36 36
Ribeye lip-on Ribeye lip-on
Roast Steak
Roasted Grilled
Boneless Boneless
160/60 195/70
0.32 0.32
36 36
Tenderloin Tenderloin
Roast Steak
Roasted Grilled
Boneless Boneless
160/60 195/70
0.0 0.0
36 36
Shoulder Shoulder
Roast Steak
Braised Grilled
Boneless Boneless
120/85 195/70
0.0 0.0
36 36
Under blade Denver cut (serratusventralis)
Steak Steak
Braised Grilled
Boneless Boneless
120/85 195/70
0.0 0.0
36 36
15.4b(0.64) 19.7b(0.60) p < 0.001 21.5a(0.85) 21.8a(0.45) p = 0.7 8.0c(0.40) 8.8c(0.45) p = 0.009 9.0(0.43) 6.9(0.48) p < 0.001 18.0(0.65) 13.9(0.57)
60.1b(0.70) 55.1b(0.45) p < 0.001 53.9c(0.67) 54.5b(0.33) p = 0.4 64.4a(0.32) 60.4a(0.38) p < 0.001 59.7(0.35) 63.9(0.33) p < 0.001 53.8(0.55) 59.1(0.50)
24.6b(0.34) 25.1b(0.35) p = 0.4 24.3b(0.31) 23.7c(0.19) p = 0.06 27.3a(0.26) 30.6a(0.40) p < 0.001 31.1(0.28) 28.3(0.23) p < 0.001 28.3(0.39) 26.0(0.33)
p < 0.001
p < 0.001
p = 0.01
For cuts prepared using the same cooking method, means followed by the same letter (a, b, or c) are not significantly different (p < 0.05). For paired cuts, bold-face indicates the greater mean (p < 0.05). SEM indicates standard error of the mean.
Table 5 Effects of cut and cooking method on fat, moisture, and protein concentration (g/100 g) for comparable ribeye cuts by cooking method, bone status, and lip status. Cut
Fabrication
Cooking method
Bone status
Cooking temperature/final internal temperature (8C)
Trim (cm)
N
Fat (SEM)
Moisture (SEM)
Protein (SEM)
Ribeye lip-on Ribeye lip-on
Roast Steak
Roasted Grilled
Bone-in Bone-in
160/60 195/70
0.32 0.32
36 36
Ribeye lip-on Ribeye lip-on
Roast Steak
Roasted Grilled
Boneless Boneless
160/60 195/70
0.32 0.32
36 36
Ribeye lip-off
Steak
Grilled
Boneless
195/70
0.32
36
22.7a(0.73) 24.2a(0.50) p = 0.05 21.5a(0.85) 21.8bx(0.45) p = 0.7 19.1y(0.50) p < 0.001
53.3a(0.53) 52.5b(0.34) p = 0.2 53.9a(0.67) 54.5ay(0.33) p = 0.4 55.5x(0.33) p = 0.01
23.5b(0.24) 23.0b(0.23) p = 0.06 24.3a(0.31) 23.7ay(0.19) p = 0.06 24.8x(0.21) p < 0.001
For bone-in vs. boneless cuts prepared using the same cooking method, means followed by the same letter (a or b) are not significantly different (p < 0.05). For lip-on vs. lip-off cuts prepared using the same cooking method, means followed by the same letter (x or y) are not significantly different (p < 0.05). Within bone-in pairs and within boneless pairs, bold-face indicates the greater mean (p < 0.05). SEM indicates standard error of the mean.
Table 6 Effects of cut and cooking method on fat, moisture, and protein concentration (g/100 g) for comparable beef cuts by fat trim and size. Cut
Fabrication
Cooking method
Bone status
Cooking temperature/final internal temperature (8C)
Trim (cm)
N
Fat (SEM)
Moisture (SEM)
Protein (SEM)
Toploin Toploin
Steak Steak
Grilled Grilled
Boneless Boneless
195/70 195/70
0.0 0.32
36 36
Under blade Under blade
Roast Steak
Braised Braised
Boneless Boneless
120/85 120/85
0.0 0.0
36 36
11.2(0.60) 17.7(0.61) p < 0.001 20.4(0.96) 18.0(0.55) p = 0.03
60.0(0.43) 55.9(0.44) p < 0.001 52.6(0.62) 53.8(0.65) p = 0.2
28.6(0.19) 26.2(0.22) p < 0.001 26.8(0.53) 28.3(0.39) p = 0.02
For paired cuts, bold-face indicates the greater mean (p < 0.05). SEM indicates standard error of the mean.
347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 356
the set of three grilled steak cuts, the ribeye had the highest cooking yield (83%, p < 0.001), whereas cooking yields for chuck eye and tenderloin were not different. Within the three roast cuts, fat and moisture concentrations were different for each cut (p < 0.001); an inverse relationship was observed between moisture and fat (Fig. 4). Fat concentration was lowest (8.0 g) and moisture concentration was highest (64.4 g) in the tenderloin roast. In contrast, fat concentration was highest (21.5 g) and moisture concentration was lowest (53.9 g) in ribeye roast. Likewise, the grilled steak cuts showed an
inverse relationship between moisture and fat. For example, fat concentration was lowest (8.8 g) and moisture concentration was highest (60.4 g) for tenderloin steak (p < 0.001), whereas fat concentration was highest (21.8 g) and moisture concentration was lowest (54.5 g) for ribeye steak. The study was not designed to account for all variation among phases in the statistical analysis. Therefore, uncontrolled differences among phases could contribute to some of the differences seen among loin, chuck and rib cuts. However, the study design used standardized methods for uniformity across phases in animal
Please cite this article in press as: Roseland, J.M., et al., Protein, fat, moisture and cooking yields from a U.S. study of retail beef cuts. J. Food Compos. Anal. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2015.04.013
357 358 359 360 361 362 363 364 365 366
G Model
YJFCA 2585 1–9 J.M. Roseland et al. / Journal of Food Composition and Analysis xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
Fig. 3. Effect of roasting and grilling on percent cooking yield for chuck eye, ribeye, and tenderloin cuts. For cuts prepared using the same cooking method, means that lack a common letter are significantly different (p < 0.05).
367 368 369 370
selection and laboratory analysis. For example, animal carcasses in all phases were chosen to fit a selection grid based on weight, yield grade, quality grade (marbling score), gender and genetics type (dairy or beef) as noted in Section 2.2.
371
3.2. Comparisons of paired cuts
372 373 374 375 376 377 378 379 380 381 382 383 384 385 386
3.2.1. Comparisons of grilled, roasted and braised cooking methods Among pairs of comparable cuts, cooking yields were higher for the grilled shoulder, boneless lip-on ribeye, bone-in lip-on ribeye and Denver cut steaks than their braised or roasted counterparts (Tables 1 and 2). Conversely, cooking yields were lower for grilled chuck eye and tenderloin steaks than for corresponding roasted cuts (p < 0.001). Fat concentration was lower in roasted cuts than in grilled cuts and lower in grilled cuts than in braised cuts. For example, fat was 23% lower in two grilled steaks (shoulder and Denver cut) than in corresponding cuts that were braised (p < 0.001; Table 4). Conversely, percent fat was greater in three grilled steaks (chuck eye, tenderloin and bone-in lip-on ribeye) than in corresponding thicker roasted cuts (p < 0.05). Differences in results for comparisons of other cuts were not significant (Tables 4 and 5; Fig. 5).
Fig. 4. Effect of roasting and grilling on moisture, fat, and protein concentrations among cuts from chuck eye, ribeye, and tenderloin. For cuts prepared using the same cooking method, means that lack a common letter are significantly different (p < 0.05).
7
Fig. 5. Comparison of moisture, fat, and protein concentrations for pairs of roasts and steaks from chuck eye, ribeye, and tenderloin (p < 0.05). NS = not significant.
Grilled chuck eye and grilled tenderloin steaks had significantly lower moisture concentration than their corresponding roasted roasts (p > 0.001). Because roasting used a lower cooking temperature and resulted in a lower final internal temperature than grilling, these results confirm earlier findings (WahrmundWyle et al., 2000b) indicating that lower cooking temperature, lower final internal temperature, and, in some cases, increased total mass can limit the extent of moisture evaporation in beef cuts during cooking, resulting in higher moisture content. In contrast, moisture concentration was greater in grilled steaks (shoulder and Denver cut) than in the corresponding cuts that were braised (p < 0.001). The higher moisture concentration of grilled steaks compared to their braised counterparts could be attributed to the lower endpoint internal temperature used for grilling, thus limiting the amount of moisture lost during cooking despite the higher cooking temperature of grilling. The reason the braised cuts had the lowest cooking yield and greatest amount of moisture loss, even though water was added during braising, was presumably the increased level of doneness. Thus, prolonged exposure to heat to achieve the final internal temperature may have extracted more moisture from lean tissue during braising compared to the other cooking methods. Protein concentration was 8–9% higher in the cuts prepared by braising than in their grilled counterparts (p < 0.001), whereas protein concentration was 12% higher in grilled tenderloin steaks compared to its roasted counterpart (p < 0.001; Table 4). Other researchers reported similar trends, finding that beef cuts cooked to higher degrees of doneness, as with braising, had higher protein content (Smith et al., 2011; Wahrmund-Wyle et al., 2000b; West et al., 2014).
387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 396 397 398 399 400 401 402 403 404 405 406 407 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 416
3.2.2. Comparisons of bone and lip status for ribeye cuts Effects of bone were more pronounced in grilled cuts than in roasted cuts (Tables 2 and 5). For example, grilled boneless lip-on ribeye steaks had more protein (23.7 g), less fat (21.8 g), higher moisture (54.5 g) concentration, and lower cooking yield (83%) than bone-in lip-on ribeye steaks with 23 g protein, 24.2 g fat and 85% cooking yield (p < 0.05). Boneless roasts had higher protein (24.3 g) concentration than corresponding bone-in roasts (23.4 g; p < 0.05), but fat concentrations and cooking yields were not significantly different between bone-in and boneless roasts. Protein (24.8 g) and moisture (55.5 g) concentrations were higher and fat (19.1 g) concentration was lower in lip-off steaks than in lip-on steaks (p < 0.01). No significant difference in cooking yield was observed between the two cuts.
417 418 419 420 421 422 423 424 425 426 427 428 429 430
Please cite this article in press as: Roseland, J.M., et al., Protein, fat, moisture and cooking yields from a U.S. study of retail beef cuts. J. Food Compos. Anal. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2015.04.013
G Model
YJFCA 2585 1–9 8
J.M. Roseland et al. / Journal of Food Composition and Analysis xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
431 432 433 434 435 436 437 438 439 440
3.2.3. Comparison of fat trim levels The 0.0-cm fat trim steaks had higher protein (28.6 g) and moisture (60 g) and lower fat (11.2 g) concentrations than 0.32-cm (1/8-inch) trim steaks (p < 0.001; Table 6). No significant difference in cooking yield was observed (Table 3). The fat concentration comparison for this pair of cuts confirmed trends for steaks of 0.0-cm fat trim compared to 0.6-cm (1/4-inch) fat trim levels in a previous study (Jones et al., 1992b). However in this earlier study, the 0.0-cm fat trim steaks usually had higher cooking yields than the 0.6-cm (1/4-inch) fat trim steaks.
441 442 443 444 445
3.2.4. Comparison of thickness The 5.08 cm (2-inch)-thick braised under blade roasts had lower protein concentration (26.3 g), higher fat concentration (20.4 g), and higher cooking yield (67%) than the 2.54 cm (1-inch)thick braised steaks (p < 0.05; Tables 3 and 6).
446 447 448 449 450 451 452 453 454 455 456 457 458 459 460 461 462 463 464 465 466 467 468 469 470 471 472 473 474 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 486 487 488 489 490 491 492 493 494
3.2.5. Overall trends Among all cuts studied, grilled top loin steak with 0.32-cm (1/8inch) fat trim had the highest cooking yield (86%) and highest percent fat gain (3%), whereas the percentage of fat in most other cuts declined. Braised cuts had the lowest cooking yields (65–67%). The trend of lower yields for beef cuts cooked by braising has been attributed (Martin et al., 2013; West et al., 2014) to the higher endpoint (internal) temperature of braised cuts compared to roasted and grilled cuts. This relationship was observed in other studies of cooking methods or endpoint temperatures relative to beef cooking yields (Akinwunmi et al., 1993; Luchak et al., 1998; Smith et al., 2011; Wahrmund-Wyle et al., 2000a). Braised cuts in the current study also had the greatest moisture loss (29–32%) compared to grilled or roasted cuts. Other researchers have also noted decreasing moisture content in beef cuts associated with increased levels of doneness (Jones et al., 1992a; Martin et al., 2013; Modzelewska-Kapitula et al., 2012; Smith et al., 2011; Wahrmund-Wyle et al., 2000b), which pertains to braising compared to roasting or grilling. An inverse relationship between moisture and fat concentration was observed in all pairs of comparable cuts, regardless of cooking method or characteristic (such as bone or lip status), except boneless lip-on ribeye. This moisture and fat relationship is consistent with earlier findings (Duckett et al., 1993; Patten et al., 2008; Smith et al., 2011). For most paired cuts in this study, cooking yield was higher in cuts that had higher moisture concentration and lower percent moisture loss. The results generally showed associations between cooking methods and cooking yield, or between cooking methods and concentration of moisture, fat, or protein. An unexpected pattern was observed in the current study, where cooking yield was higher for ribeye steak (83%) than the corresponding roast (76%), whereas cooking yields were higher for roasts from chuck and loin than corresponding steaks (Fig. 3). The grilled ribeye steak’s higher yield was surprising because higher cooking temperatures and final internal temperatures, associated in these cases with grilling, are usually associated with lower cooking yields because of higher endpoint temperatures (Wahrmund-Wyle et al., 2000a). The results of this study were probably not influenced by the 0.32-cm (1/8-inch) fat trim on the rib cuts versus the 0.0-cm trim on the chuck and loin cuts because loin steaks with 0.32-cm (1/8-inch) fat trim showed no cooking yield differences compared to loin steaks with 0.0-cm trim. Instead, the unexpected finding in the current study could be attributed to ribeye’s composition because the fat and moisture concentrations of ribeye steak vs. roast were not significantly different. In contrast, the chuck and tenderloin steaks had higher fat concentrations and lower moisture concentrations than their respective roasts, which coincided with lower cooking yields than their corresponding
roasts (p < 0.05). Thus, the higher moisture concentrations in the chuck and tenderloin roasts, in addition to the lower endpoint temperature used for roasting, were associated with their higher cooking yields. This study showed patterns of protein, fat and moisture concentration among different cuts and cooking methods, but these patterns were not consistent among all comparisons. For example, roasted cuts, which were cooked to the lowest internal temperatures, sometimes, but not always, had higher moisture and fat concentrations and cooking yields than their respective grilled steaks, which had a higher cooking temperature and higher internal temperature. The variations found, such as the higher cooking yields in the grilled ribeye lip-on boneless and bone-in steaks compared to corresponding roasts, could be exceptions to the trends and possibly due, in part, to the unique physiological properties of cuts from different parts of the beef carcass. Another set of unexpected findings in the current study was the similar protein concentration for ribeye lip-on roasts and their grilled steak counterparts in boneless and bone-in pairs. This was surprising because protein and fat concentrations in this study were typically higher in grilled vs. roasted cuts and higher in braised vs. grilled cuts (p < 0.05). These trends were supported by a study of beef loin steaks (Smith et al., 2011) where percentage protein and fat increased when degree of doneness increased.
495 496 497 498 499 500 501 502 503 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 513 514 515 516 517 518
3.3. Database products resulting from this research
519
Researchers and other professionals can obtain accurate beef nutrition data generated from this study in three user-friendly resources available at http://www.ars.usda.gov/nutrientdata. First, SR has updated nutrient profiles for 32 retail cuts of beef with up to 12 profiles per cut, including profiles for raw, cooked, separable lean only, separable lean and fat, Choice, Select and ‘‘all grades’’ cuts. Second, USDA has published a document with cooking yield data for 45 beef items from the NDI study and for over 125 other meat and poultry items (Roseland et al., 2014). Third, the USDA Nutrient Data Set for Beef Retail Cuts provides nutritional data on 20 retail beef cuts for which nutrition labeling is required (Roseland et al., 2013).
520 521 522 523 524 525 526 527 528 529 530 531
4. Conclusions
532
The results of this study showed trends in cooking yield factors for retail beef cuts prepared by grilling, roasting and braising methods and by various cut characteristics. To a lesser extent, patterns were noted in fat, moisture and protein concentrations. The differences among various cuts of beef demonstrate the complexity of the factors that affect beef’s nutrient content. The magnitude of these differences between cuts was relatively small. Therefore, widespread nutrient analysis of beef cuts using numerous cooking methods may be impractical. However, this study demonstrates the importance of maintaining specific data for a variety of retail beef cuts to study nutritional properties of beef. Unique characteristics of cuts from different primals and cooking methods may affect nutrient composition. Thus, data for a variety of retail beef cuts can have value for researchers and consumers for detecting small nutrient content nuances. These cooking yield data provide valuable information regarding the impact of factors such as cooking method, size of cut and presence of bone on cooking yield as well as moisture and fat changes. These data are useful for making food preparation decisions, such as selecting techniques that maximize cooking yields. Nutrient data results from research such as this study can also help scientists determine the effects of beef consumption on health and assist dietitians and consumers in making wise choices.
533 534 535 536 537 538 539 540 541 542 543 544 545 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555
Please cite this article in press as: Roseland, J.M., et al., Protein, fat, moisture and cooking yields from a U.S. study of retail beef cuts. J. Food Compos. Anal. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2015.04.013
G Model
YJFCA 2585 1–9 J.M. Roseland et al. / Journal of Food Composition and Analysis xxx (2015) xxx–xxx
556 557 558 559 560 561 562 563
Acknowledgements The authors wish to acknowledge the support of USDA colleagues Pamela R. Pehrsson, PhD, and Joanne M. Holden, MS, for enabling the completion of this research project; and the professional contributions of Marybeth Duvall, MS, Sue Douglass, MS, Debby Berlyne, PhD, and participating meat scientists from the three collaborating universities. This project was funded largely by Q4 the Beef Checkoff program. Q5
564
References
565 566 567 568 569 570 571 572 573 574 575 576 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 589 590 591 592 593 594 595 596 597 598 599 600 601 602 603 604 605 606 607 608 609 610 611 612 613 614 615 616 617 618 619 620 621 622
Acheson, R.J., 2013. Nutrient Composition and Sensory Attributes of Beef From Grain-finished Steers and Heifers (Ph.D. dissertation) Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO. retrieved September 8, 2014 from: http://digitool.library. colostate.edu/R?RN=264641538. Ahuja, J.K., Moshfegh, A.J., Holden, J.M., Harris, E., 2013. USDA food and nutrient databases provide the infrastructure for food and nutrition research, policy, and practice. J. Nutr. 143 (2), 241S–249S. Akinwunmi, I., Thompson, L.D., Ramsey, C.B., 1993. Marbling, fat trim and doneness effects on sensory attributes, cooking loss and composition of cooked beef steaks. J. Food Sci. 58 (2), 242–244. AOAC, 1993. Removal of Moisture, Official Method 8.2.1.1, 16th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA. AOAC, 2006. Official Methods of Analysis, 18th ed. Association of Official Analytical Chemists, Arlington, VA. Asp, M.L., Richardson, J.R., Collene, A.L., Droll, K.R., Belury, M.A., 2012. Dietary protein and beef consumption predict for markers of muscle mass and nutrition status in older adults. J. Nutr. Health Aging 16 (9), 784–790. Bernstein, A.M., Sun, Q., Hu, F.B., Stampfer, M.J., Manson, J.E., Willett, W.C., 2010. Major dietary protein sources and risk of coronary heart disease in women. Circulation 122 (9), 876–883. Desimone, T.L., Acheson, R.A., Woerner, D.R., Engle, T.E., Douglass, L.W., Belk, K.E., 2013. Nutrient analysis of the Beef Alternative Merchandising cuts. Meat Sci. 93 (3), 733–745. Dixon, C.L., Woerner, D.R., Tokach, R.J., Chapman, P.L., Engle, T.E., Tatum, J.D., Belk, K.E., 2012. Quantifying the aging response and nutrient composition for muscles of the beef round. J. Anim. Sci. 90 (3), 996–1007. Duckett, S.K., Wagner, D.G., Yates, L.D., Dolezal, H.G., May, S.G., 1993. Effects of time on feed on beef nutrient composition. J. Anim. Sci. 71 (8), 2079–2088. Folch, J., Lees, M., Sloane Stanley, G.H., 1957. A simple method for the isolation and purification of total lipides from animal tissues. J. Biol. Chem. 226 (1), 497–509. Garcia, L.G., Nicholson, K.L., Hoffman, T.W., Lawrence, T.E., Hale, D.S., Griffin, D.B., Savell, J.W., Vanoverbeke, D.L., Morgan, J.B., Belk, K.E., Field, T.G., Scanga, J.A., Tatum, J.D., Smith, G.C., 2008. National Beef Quality Audit-2005: survey of targeted cattle and carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. J. Anim. Sci. 86 (12), 3533–3543. Garrett, W.N., Hinman, N., 1971. Fat content of trimmed beef muscles as influenced by quality grade, yield grade, marbling score and sex. J. Anim. Sci. 33 (5), 948–957. Hiza, H.A.B., Bente, L., 2011. Content of the U.S. food supply: developments between 2000–2006, home economics research report number. retrieved August 6, 2014 from: http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/publications/foodsupply/final_ foodsupplyreport_2006.pdf. Jones, D.K., Savell, J.W., Cross, H.R., 1992a. Effects of fat trim on the composition of beef retail cuts – 2. Fat and moisture content of the separable lean. J. Muscle Foods 3 (1), 57–71. Jones, O.K., Savell, J.W., Cross, H.R., 1992b. Effects of fat trim on the composition of beef retail cuts – 3. Cooking yields and fat retention of the separable lean. J. Muscle Foods 3 (1), 73–81. Leheska, J.M., Thompson, L.D., Howe, J.C., Hentges, E., Boyce, J., Brooks, J.C., Shriver, B., Hoover, L., Miller, M.F., 2008. Effects of conventional and grass-feeding systems on the nutrient composition of beef. J. Anim. Sci. 86 (12), 3575–3585. Luchak, G.L., Miller, R.K., Belk, K.E., Hale, D.S., Michaelsen, S.A., Johnson, D.D., West, R.L., Leak, F.W., Cross, H.R., Savell, J.W., 1998. Determination of sensory, chemical and cooking characteristics of retail beef cuts differing in intramuscular and external fat. Meat Sci. 50 (1), 55–72. Martin, J.N., Brooks, J.C., Thompson, L.D., Savell, J.W., Harris, K.B., May, L.L., Haneklaus, A.N., Schutz, J.L., Belk, K.E., Engle, T., Woerner, D.R., Legako, J.F., Luna, A.M., Douglass, L.W., Douglass, S.E., Howe, J., Duvall, M., Patterson, K.Y., Leheska, J.L., 2013. Nutrient database improvement project: the influence of U.S.D.A. Quality
9
and Yield Grade on the separable components and proximate composition of raw and cooked retail cuts from the beef rib and plate. Meat Sci. 95 (3), 486–494. McAfee, A.J., McSorley, E.M., Cuskelly, G.J., Moss, B.W., Wallace, J.M., Bonham, M.P., Fearon, A.M., 2010. Red meat consumption: an overview of the risks and benefits. Meat Sci. 84 (1), 1–13. McNeill, S., Van Elswyk, M.E., 2012. Red meat in global nutrition. Meat Sci. 92 (3), 166–173. McNeill, S.H., Harris, K.B., Field, T.G., Van Elswyk, M.E., 2012. The evolution of lean beef: identifying lean beef in today’s U.S. marketplace. Meat Sci. 90 (1), 1–8. Melanson, K., Gootman, J., Myrdal, A., Kline, G., Rippe, J.M., 2003. Weight loss and total lipid profile changes in overweight women consuming beef or chicken as the primary protein source. Nutrition 19 (5), 409–414. Merchant, A.T., Dehghan, M., 2006. Food composition database development for between country comparisons. Nutr. J. 5, 2. Modzelewska-Kapitula, M., Dabrowska, E., Jankowska, B., Kwiatkowska, A., Cierach, M., 2012. The effect of muscle, cooking method and final internal temperature on quality parameters of beef roast. Meat Sci. 91 (2), 195–202. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, 2013. Retail Beef Cuts Poster. retrieved January 13, 2015 from: http://www.beefretail.org/beefcutcharts.aspx. National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, 2014. Lean Matters: Chronicling Beef’s Change From Gate to Plate – A Distinctive Public–Private Collaboration. retrieved August 6, 2014 from: http://www.beefissuesquarterly.com/CMDocs/ BeefResearch/Nutrition/LeanMatters_Web.pdf. Patten, L.E., Hodgen, J.M., Stelzleni, A.M., Calkins, C.R., Johnson, D.D., Gwartney, B.L., 2008. Chemical properties of cow and beef muscles: benchmarking the differences and similarities. J. Anim. Sci. 86 (8), 1904–1916. Phillips, K.M., Patterson, K.Y., Rasor, A.S., Exler, J., Haytowitz, D.B., Holden, J.M., Pehrsson, P.R., 2006. Quality-control materials in the USDA National Food and Nutrient Analysis Program (NFNAP). Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 384 (6), 1341–1355. Roseland, J.M., Nguyen, Q.V., Williams, J.R., Patterson, K.Y., 2013. USDA Nutrient Data Set for Retail Beef Cuts From SR, Release 3.0. retrieved August 6, 2014 from: http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/Place/12354500/Data/Beef/Retail_ Beef_Cuts03.pdf. Roseland, J.M., Nguyen, Q.V., Williams, J.R., Patterson, K.Y., Showell, B.A., Pehrsson, P.R., 2014. USDA Table of Cooking Yields for Meat and Poultry, Release 2. retrieved September 30, 2014 from: http://www.ars.usda.gov/SP2UserFiles/ Place/12354500/Data/retn/USDA_CookingYields_MeatPoultry02.pdf. Roussell, M.A., Hill, A.M., Gaugler, T.L., West, S.G., Heuvel, J.P., Alaupovic, P., Gillies, P.J., Kris-Etherton, P.M., 2012. Beef in an optimal lean diet study: effects on lipids, lipoproteins, and apolipoproteins. Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 95 (1), 9–16. Roussell, M.A., Hill, A.M., Gaugler, T.L., West, S.G., Ulbrecht, J.S., Vanden Heuvel, J.P., Gillies, P.J., Kris-Etherton, P.M., 2014. Effects of a DASH-like diet containing lean beef on vascular health. J. Hum. Hypertens. 28 (10), 600–605. SAS Institute Inc., 2011. SAS OnlineDoc1 9.3. SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC. Savell, J.W., Harris, J.J., Cross, H.R., Hale, D.S., Beasley, L.C., 1991. National beef market basket survey. J. Anim. Sci. 69 (7), 2883–2893. Sinha, R., Cross, A.J., Graubard, B.I., Leitzmann, M.F., Schatzkin, A., 2009. Meat intake and mortality: a prospective study of over half a million people. Archiv. Intern. Med. 169 (6), 562–571. Smith, A.M., Harris, K.B., Haneklaus, A.N., Savell, J.W., 2011. Proximate composition and energy content of beef steaks as influenced by USDA quality grade and degree of doneness. Meat Sci. 89 (2), 228–232. Smith, D.R., Savell, J.W., Smith, S.B., Cross, H.R., 1989. Fatty acid and proximate composition of raw and cooked retail cuts of beef trimmed to different external fat levels. Meat Sci. 26 (4), 295–311. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service, 2014. Livestock & Meat Domestic Data. retrieved September 23, 2014 from: http://www.ers.usda.gov/ data-products/livestock-meat-domestic-data.aspx#.VCGAovldX9U. U.S. Department of Agriculture, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, 2010. Dietary Guidelines for Americans, 2010, 7th ed. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC. Wahrmund-Wyle, J.L., Harris, K.B., Savell, J.W., 2000a. Beef retail cut composition: 1. Separable tissue components. J. Food Compos. Anal. 13 (3), 233–242. Wahrmund-Wyle, J.L., Harris, K.B., Savell, J.W., 2000b. Beef retail cut composition: 2. Proximate analysis. J. Food Compos. Anal. 13 (3), 243–251. West, S.E., Harris, K.B., Haneklaus, A.N., Savell, J.W., Thompson, L.D., Brooks, J.C., Pool, J.K., Luna, A.M., Engle, T.E., Schutz, J.S., Woerner, D.R., Arcibeque, S.L., Belk, K.E., Douglass, L., Leheska, J.M., McNeill, S., Howe, J.C., Holden, J.M., Duvall, M., Patterson, K., 2014. Nutrient database improvement project: the influence of USDA quality and yield grade on the separable components and proximate composition of raw and cooked retail cuts from the beef chuck. Meat Sci. 97 (4), 558–567. Zanovec, M., O’Neil, C.E., Keast, D.R., Fulgoni III, V.L., Nicklas, T.A., 2010. Lean beef contributes significant amounts of key nutrients to the diets of U.S. adults: National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey 1999–2004. Nutr. Res. 30 (6), 375–381.
Please cite this article in press as: Roseland, J.M., et al., Protein, fat, moisture and cooking yields from a U.S. study of retail beef cuts. J. Food Compos. Anal. (2015), http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jfca.2015.04.013
623 624 625 626 627 628 629 630 631 632 633 634 635 636 637 638 639 640 641 642 643 644 645 646 647 648 649 650 651 652 653 654 655 656 657 658 659 660 661 662 663 664 665 666 667 668 669 670 671 672 673 674 675 676 677 678 679 680 681 682 683 684 685 686 687 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 695 696 697