1-s2.0-S0309174014001065-main

8/12/2019 1-s2.0-S0309174014001065-main

1/8

Consumer assessment of beef palatability from four beef muscles from

USDA Choice and Select graded carcasses

M.R. Hunt, A.J. Garmyn, T.G. O'Quinn, C.H. Corbin, J.F. Legako, R.J. Rathmann, J.C. Brooks, M.F. Miller

Department of Animal and Food Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, 79409, USA

a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o

Article history:

Received 20 December 2013

Received in revised form 25 March 2014Accepted 10 April 2014

Available online 23 April 2014

Keywords:

Acceptability

Consumer

Flavor

Muscle characterization

Quality grade

Tenderness

Consumer sensory analysis was conducted to determine differences in beef palatability between two quality

grade categories [Upper 2/3 (Top) Choice and Select] and four muscles [longissimus lumborum (LL), gluteus

medius (GM), serratus ventralis (SV), and semimembranosus (SM)]. Generally, tenderness, avor, and overall

liking scores were more desirable for Top Choice compared to Select, regardless of muscle. Consumers rated LL

as more tender (Pb 0.05) than SV and SM, but similar to GM ( P= 0.52). Overall and avor acceptability were

similar (PN 0.05) between LL, GM, and SV, regardless of quality grade. Consumer overall liking was most highly

correlated with avor liking (r= 0.85). When tenderness was acceptable,avor and juiciness played a major

role in determining overall acceptability. Overall liking of GM and SV from Top Choice carcasses was superior

to LL from Select carcasses and comparable to LL from Top Choice carcasses.

2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Introduction

Beefavor is undoubtedly related to consumer satisfaction. Accord-

ing to Umberger, Feuz,Calkins, and Killinger (2000), consumerscan dis-

tinguish a avor difference between strip steaks from two varying

marbling levels and are willingto pay premiums for thetypeof beefa-

vorthey prefer. O'Quinnet al. (2012)showedthat fat content associated

with USDA quality grade, which is based upon the visual appraisal of

marbling and carcass maturity, had a large effect on beef avor of

longissimus lumborum steaks, with beefavor contributing greatly to

overall palatability. A distinct linear decline in avor rating was ob-

served as quality grade decreased from Prime to Standard. USDA

Prime represents the highest quality grade within young Amaturity

carcasses, while USDA Standard, the lowest. Although all palatability

traits were related to overall liking, consumer ratings for avor had

the highest correlation to overall liking (O'Quinn et al., 2012). Previous

work has shown that avor becomes the most important aspect of beef

eating satisfaction when tenderness is acceptable (Behrends et al.,

2005a, 2005b; Goodson et al., 2002; Killinger, Calkins, Umberger, Feuz,

& Eskridge, 2004). Moreover, several studies collectively showed that

consumer overall acceptability ratings were more highly correlated

with avor ratings than tenderness or juiciness ratings, regardless

of tenderness variation (Neely et al., 1998; O'Quinn et al., 2012;

Thompson, 2004).Given these results, research wasneeded to determineif similar beef

avor trends would be observed in muscles other than the longissimus

lumborum. We believe that higher intramuscular fat (IMF) content of

beef cuts considered intermediate in tenderness or tough will increase

consumeravor ratings and consequently overall palatability. Until re-

cently, the chuck has traditionally been marketed as low-priced roasts

(Kukowski, Maddock, Wulf, Fausti, & Taylor, 2005). Following muscle

proling work of the beef chuck and round, the wholesale value of the

chuck has increased, thus enhancing the overall value of a beef carcass

(Von Seggern, Calking, Johnson, Brickler, & Gwartney, 2005). Moreover,

the top sirloin has been associated with inconsistencies in palatability,

particularly in tenderness (Harris, Miller, Savell, Cross, & Ringer, 1992;

Neely et al., 1998). If overall eating satisfaction of chuck, sirloin, and

round cuts from high quality carcasses is comparable to loin cuts from

lower quality carcasses, additional value could be captured by market-

ing muscles with intermediate tenderness, which are currently

underutilized in high quality carcasses. Moreover, viable steak alterna-

tives for foodservice establishments may be discovered. Thus, this re-

search explored ways to capitalize on the inherent quality variation of

the beef population to add value. Therefore, the rst objective of this

study was to measure the effects of quality grade on the palatability

traits ofavor, tenderness, juiciness, and overall liking of beef strip

loin steaks [Institutional Meat Purchase Specications (IMPS) #180],

under blade (Denver cut) steaks (IMPS #116E), top sirloin butt steaks

(IMPS # 184), and top round steaks (IMPS #169) (NAMP, 2010) as

Meat Science 98 (2014) 18

This study was funded by the Beef Checkoff.

Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 806 742 2805; fax: +1 806 742 4003.

E-mail address:[email protected](A.J. Garmyn).

http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.04.004

0309-1740/ 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Contents lists available atScienceDirect

Meat Science

j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / m e a t s c i
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.04.004http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.04.004http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.04.004mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.04.004http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03091740http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/journal/03091740http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.04.004mailto:[email protected]://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.04.004http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.04.004&domain=pdf

8/12/2019 1-s2.0-S0309174014001065-main

2/8

determined by consumers, with emphasis on the role of IMFon beefa-

vor and overall palatability. The second objective was to determine if

higherIMF percentages associated with these quality grades could com-

pensate for reduced tenderness in steaks from underutilized muscles in

the chuck, sirloin, and round by improving overall liking through in-

creasedavor.

2. Materials and methods

2.1. Product collection and sample preparation

The study was arranged as a 2 4 factorial representing two quality

grade categories [Upper 2/3 (Top) Choice (marbling scores from

modest50 to moderate50) and Select (marbling scores from slight00 to

slight100)] and four muscles [longissimus lumborum (LL), gluteus

medius (GM), serratus ventralis (SV), and semimembranosus (SM)].

Sides (n= 40) of beef (20 per quality grade category) ( USDA, 1997)

were selected from a commercial beef processing facility. Carcasses

were selected and veried by trained Texas Tech University personnel

through visual appraisal of marbling and maturity of the product at

the time of selection. The strip loin (IMPS #180;NAMP, 2010), top sir-

loin butt (IMPS #184;NAMP, 2010), and the top round (IMPS #169;

NAMP, 2010) from each of the selected sides were identied and col-

lected. The chuck eye roll was removed from the chuck roll leaving

only the under blade (IMPS #116E;NAMP, 2010) or serratus ventralis

which was fabricated at the plant by trained personnel. All muscles

were transported by refrigerated truck to theGordon W. Davis Meat Sci-

ence Laboratory in Lubbock, Texas. Subprimals were stored in vacuum

bags at 2 to 4 C in the absence of light until 21 days postmortem.

Following 21 days postmortem aging, each muscle was trimmed to

remove all visible or external connective tissue and exterior fat. In addi-

tion, the gluteus medius was removed from the strip loin. The biceps

femoris, gluteus accessories, and gluteus profundus were removed

from the top sirloin butt. The gracilis, adductor, pectineus, and sartorius

muscles were removed from the top round. The resulting muscles were

fabricated into 2.5 cm-thick steaks. A steak from each subprimal was

designated for proximate analysis, WarnerBratzler shear force

(WBSF), and fatty acid analysis in a rotational order throughout themuscle to eliminate any bias. All remaining 2.5-cm steaks were por-

tioned into smaller piecesmeasuring approximately5 cm 5 cm.Steaks

for proximate analysis, WBSF, fatty acid analysis and consumer testing

were packaged, andfrozen (10 C) until sorting. Once frozenthe sam-

ples were sorted into a predetermined balanced cook order. Cooking

groups (n = 48) of 10 steakpieces from each treatment were packaged

and stored in the absenceof lightat10 C until consumer evaluations.

2.2. Proximate analysis and pH

Proximate analyses were performed to determine the percentage of

IMF, collagen, moisture, and protein. Frozen samples were thawed at 2

5 C for 24 h prior to analysis. Each sample wasnely ground through a

commercial food grinder (Krups 150 Watt Meat Grinder item #402-70,Krups, Shelton, CT) to obtain a 200-g sample. Samples were analyzed

using an AOAC-approved (AOAC, 2005) near infrared spectrophotome-

ter (FOSS FoodScan 78800; Dedicated Analytical Solutions, Hilleroed,

Denmark). Independent readings (n = 15) were taken from each

sample and averaged for the nal reported values. At grinding, a 10-g

sample was reserved for analysis of pH using the methods described

byLuque et al. (2011).

2.3. WarnerBratzler shear force evaluation

Shear force of each steak was determined by using a WBSF analyzer

(G-R Elec. Mfg., Manhattan, KS). Steakswere thawed for 1824h until a

2 to 5 C internal temperature was reached. Steaks were cooked on a

model S-143K Silex clamshell grill (Silex Grills Australia PTY. Ltd.,

Marrickville, Australia), preheated to 225 C. The grill was allowed to

preheat for 45 min prior to cooking; each steak was cooked to an inter-

nal temperature of 71 C. Steaks were then cooled for 24 h at 2 C. Six

1.3-cm cores were removed (unless steak size limited number of

cores) parallel to the muscle ber from each steak and sheared once

perpendicular to the muscle bers. The values from the six cores from

each steak were averaged to determine the overall shear force value

for the steak for statistical analysis.

2.4. Consumeravor preparation and panels

The Texas Tech University Institutional Review Board approved

procedures for use of human subjects for consumer panel evaluation

of sensory attributes.

Samples were thawed at 2 to 4 C for 24 h prior to consumer evalu-

ation. All samples were cooked on a model S-143K Silex clamshell grill,

preheated to 225 C. The grill was preheated 45 min prior to cooking

and 10 steak pieces (unrelated to the trial) were cooked to condition

the grill and ensure stable temperatures throughout all heating ele-

ments (Gee, 2006). An exact time schedule was followed to ensure all

steaks were prepared identically and facilitate continued consistency

of the heating elements. Sets of 10 steak pieces were prepared at one

time on the grill, for an allotted 5 min. After cooking, steak pieces

were held for 3 min before serving. Each steak piece was cut into two,

equally-sized portions and served to two predetermined consumer

panelists.

Consumer panels were conducted in the Texas Tech University Ani-

mal and Food Science Building. Consumer panelists (n= 120) were re-

cruited from Lubbock, Texas and the surrounding communities and

were prescreened for a minimum of consuming beef at least once in a

two week period. Panelists were monetarily compensated for their par-

ticipation, and were allowed to participate only once. Each session

consisted of 20 consumers per panel and lasted approximately 75 min.

Attributes for each sample were rated on a paper ballot with 100-

mm continuous line scales for tenderness, juiciness, liking ofavor,

and overall liking. The zero anchors were labeled as not tender, not

juicy, and dislike extremely ofavor and overall. Conversely, the 100

anchors were labeled as very tender, very juicy, and like extremely ofavor and overall. In addition, each consumer was asked to rate each

trait as acceptable or unacceptable. Consumers were also requested to

rate each sample as unsatisfactory, good everyday quality, better than

everyday quality, or premium quality. Consumers were served a total

of eight samples. Each consumer received all treatments according to

a predetermined rotational order. The steak rotation was balanced

acrossall 20 consumers so that each treatment waseatenan equal num-

ber of times across all eight sampling positions. The panel was conduct-

ed in a large room with tables divided into individual booths. Each

panelist was assigned a number. Panelists were provided with a ballot,

plastic utensils, toothpicks, a napkin, an expectorant cup, a cup of

water,as well as diluted apple juice (10%v/v),and crackersto use aspal-

ate cleansers between samples.

2.5. Statistical methods

Consumerdata were analyzed as a completeblock designwitha 2

4 factorial arrangement. Muscle and quality grade served as xed

effects, and consumer was included in the model as a random vari-

able. The MIXED procedure of SAS (SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC) was

used to analyze the effect of quality grade and muscle on consumer

responses, proximate analysis, and WBSF. Acceptability and satisfac-

tion data were analyzed using the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS, with

the ILINK option of the LSMEANS statement of SAS used to calculate

least squares means for the proportions. Treatment least squares

means were separated with the PDIFF option of SAS at a signicance

level ofPb0.05. The CORR procedure of SAS was used to determine

the relationship between consumer responses and proximate data,

2 M.R. Hunt et al. / Meat Science 98 (2014) 18

8/12/2019 1-s2.0-S0309174014001065-main

3/8

and WBSFacross allsamplesand by muscle at a signicance level ofP

b0.05.

3. Results and discussion

3.1. Consumer demographics

Consumer preferences in Lubbock, Texas have reportedly beensimilar to preferences of beef consumers in other major metropoli-

tan areas throughout the country such as, Los Angeles, CA; Chicago,

IL; and Washington D.C. (Miller, Carr, Ramsey, Crockett, & Hoover,

2001). The demographic prole of the consumers that participated

in this study is presented inTable 1. Slightly more males participated

in the study than females. This varies slightly from the national aver-

age as reported by the 2012 Statistical Abstract ( U.S. Census Bureau,

2012) with 49.2% of the population being male and 50.8% being fe-

male. The ages of the consumers were distributed from 18 to 65

with the 1825 group having the most participants (33.1%). More-

over, the 2635 age group had the least number of participants

with only 10.2%. The majority of the consumers were Caucasian,

which is about 10% higher than the national average (79.6%;U.S.

Census Bureau, 2012). Each annual household income bracket was

represented by the consumers tested, but the largest number of par-

ticipants (29.1%) represented the $70,000100,000 range. The edu-

cation level was higher than that of the US population with 58%

being college graduates or post graduates.

3.2. Consumer purchasing habits

Thebeef purchasing habits of the consumerswho participated in the

sensory study are presented inTable 2. Nearly 80% of the consumers

statedthey were theregular purchaserof beef forthe family. When buy-

ing steaks or roasts, 51.3% of the consumers stated they normally pur-

chase USDA Choice, followed by 12.6% Sterling Silver, 6.7% USDA

Select, and 5% USDA Prime and Certied Angus Beef. When consuming

steaks and roasts, participants indicated the most important trait wastenderness (57% and 70%, respectively). Flavor ranked second when

consuming steaks at 35%. Moreover, 94% of participants said they have

an excellent eating experience almost alwaysor some of the time

when eating beef.

3.3. Proximate analysis and pH

Table 3 illustrates the relationships of muscle and quality grade with

proximate components of raw muscle samples. Muscle and quality

grade inuenced (Pb 0.01) percent IMF, collagen, and protein, while

an interaction was observed (P= 0.04) between muscle and quality

grade for the percentage of moisture. SV had greater IMF and collagen

percentages than any other muscle and, consequently, the least

percentage protein. The percent of IMF in the muscles from the loin

(LL and GM) was intermediate, while the SM had lower IMF percentage

than any other muscle. In alignment with the current results, similar

trends in moisture and IMF have been observed between muscles by

McKeith, De Vol, Miles, Bechtel, & Carr (1985)andVon Seggern et al.

(2005). Collagen percentage was less than 2% in the GM, LL, and SM;

however, the percent in LL was similar (P= 0.61) to GM and SM. Con-

versely, protein percentage wasgreatest in SM and LL, although theper-

cent of protein found in GM did not differ (P= 0.12) from LL. Top

Choice had a greater (Pb 0.01) percent of IMF and collagen as well as

a lower (Pb 0.01) percentage of protein regardless of muscle. Within

each muscle, the proportion of moisture was reduced as quality grade

increased from Select to Top Choice. The Top Choice SV had less mois-

ture than any other treatment combination, while the Select SM and

LL had the greatest proportion of moisture. Within each quality grade,

SV generally had the least percentage moisture with SM containingthe greatest.

Although pH for all samples was within acceptable ranges (b5.8), SV

had pH values greater (P b0.01) than all other muscles (Table 3).

Table 1

Demographic characteristics of consumers (n = 120) who participated in consumer

sensory panels.

Characteristic Response % of consumers

Sex Male 52.59

Female 47.41

Household size 1 Person 14.172 People 22.50

3 People 14.17

4 People 30.00

5 People 10.00

6 People 7.05

N6 People 1.67

Household income Single income 40

Dual income 60

Age 1825 33.05

2635 10.17

3645 20.34

4655 24.58

5665 11.86

Ethnic origin AfricanAmerican 0.01

Caucasian/White 88.98

Native American 1.69

Hispanic 0.85Asian 6.78

Other 1.69

Annual household income, US $ b20,000 10.26

20,000 to 29,999 5.13

30,000 to 49,999 17.09

50,000 to 69,999 11.11

70,000 to 100,000 29.06

N100,000 27.35

Highest level of education

completed

Non-high school graduate 1.67

High school graduat e 12.50

Some college/technical school 27.50

College graduate 42.50

Post graduate 15.83

Weekly beef consumption None 6.67

1 to 3 times 44.17

4 to 6 times 35.83

7 or more times 13.33

Table 2

Beef purchasing habits of consumers (n = 120) who participated in consumer sensory

panels.

Characteristic Response % of consumers

Consumer is a regular

purchaser of beef in family

Yes 78.33

No 21.67

Quality of steaks or roasts

normally purchased

USDA Prime 5.04

USDA Choice 51.26

USDA Select 6.72

Certi

ed Angus Beef 5.04Store Brand 1.68

Sterling Silver 12.61

Chef's Exclusive 1.68

F or eman's Choice 1.68

N olan Ryan's Beef 0.00

S teak House brand 0.84

Do not know 13.45

Most important palatability

trait when consuming beef roasts

Flavor 21.01

Tenderness 69.75

Juiciness 9.24

Most important palatability trait

when consuming beef steaks

Flavor 35.29

Tenderness 57.14

Juiciness 7.56

How often the consumer has an

excellent eating experience

Almost always 51.67

Some of the time 42.50

Almost never 5.00

Never 0.83

3M.R. Hunt et al. / Meat Science 98 (2014) 18

8/12/2019 1-s2.0-S0309174014001065-main

4/8

McKenna et al. (2005) reported pH of several muscles during simulated

retail display, including the four evaluated in the current study. Much

like the present results, SV had a greater pH than LL, SM, or GM, and

minimal differences in pH values were observed during the display pe-

riod. Likewise,Von Seggern et al. (2005)reported similar trends for pH

values between muscles as the present results.

3.4. WarnerBratzler shear force

The relationshipsbetween muscle and quality grade with WBSF and

cooking loss are depicted inTable 4. No interactions were observed (P

N 0.05) for either trait. Least squares means for all muscles were

below 45.1 N, which is often cited as the critical value where consumers

begin to rate LL steaks as toughas opposed to tender(Miller et al.,

2001; Shackelford, Morgan, Cross, & Savell, 1991). Regardless, SM had

greater (Pb 0.05) WBSF values than any other muscle except the GM.

Although SV had the least numerical WBSF value, LL and SV required

similar force to shear (PN 0.05), which is supported byJohnson et al.

(1988)andPaterson and Parrish (1986). Regardless of muscle, USDA

Select steaks had greater (P b0.01) WBSF values compared to Top

Choice. Cooking loss was not impacted by muscle or quality grade ( P

N0.05).McKeith, De Vol, Miles, Bechtel, and Carr (1985) and Rhee,Wheeler, Shackelford, and Koohmaraie (2004)reported similar rank-

ings of shear valueswhen evaluating WBSF of variousmusclesincluding

LL, GM, and SM; however, SV was not included in either study. More-

over, WBSF values reported byRhee et al. (2004)were greater than

those in the current study; however, steaks were aged until 14 days

postmortem (as opposed to 21 days in the current study), which may

explain a portion of the variation. When characterizing the muscles of

the round,Von Seggern et al. (2005)classied the GM with a WBSF

value N47.96 N, but the SM had an intermediate classication (37.76

N b WBSF N47.96 N), which conicts with the current ndings as

both values were greater than the current study. Again, this may be

due to the shorter postmortem aging period of 14 days implemented

byVon Seggern et al. (2005). Their classication of the SV, however,

as a muscle with WBSFb37.76 N alignswith the present results. In con-trast to the current ndings,Nelson, Dolezal, Ray, and Morgan (2004)

reported an interaction for WBSF between quality grade and muscle.

Three of which are included in this study (LL, GM, and SM). In their

study, Top Choice (Certied Angus Beef) had greater WBSF values in

the LL and GM, but not in SM, when compared to Select. Steaks were

aged 14 days in Nelson's study and 21 days in the present study; how-

ever, the GM had greater shear values than the SM regardless of quality

grade, which again contradicts the current results.

In support of thecurrentndings, Smith et al.(1985) reported steaks

from carcasses with higher marbling scores had lower shear force

values than steaks with lower marbling scores. Likewise, Lorenzen

et al. (2003)reported that USDA Select had higher shear values than

USDA Choice. Additional research has shown that as the quality grade

of beef cuts increased, WBSF values decreased, suggesting marbling

has a positive effect on objective measurements of meat tenderness

(Garmyn et al., 2011; Gruber et al., 2006; Nelson et al., 2004).

3.5. Tenderness

Consumer ratings for all tenderness scores are shown in Table 5.

Tenderness scores were more desirable (P b 0.01) for Top Choice

(63.79) compared to Select (52.54), regardless of muscle. Consumers

rated LL (68.06) as more tender (P b0.01) than SV (63.28) and SM

(34.72), but similar to GM (66.59; PN0.05). Consumers scored the ten-derness of SM far lower (Pb 0.05) than any other muscle, which aligns

with the greater shear force values. However, a more distinct separation

was observed in consumer tenderness scores than WBSF between SM

and the other muscles.

Previous consumer studies involving muscles from the chuck often

compare those muscles to the longissimus muscle from the wholesale

rib (LT), creating challenges when comparing to the current study.

Kukowski et al.(2005)observed similar results to ourswhenconsumers

evaluated USDA Choice LT and SV, where LT tenderness scores were

more desirable than those for SV. Similarly, Kukowski, Maddock, and

Wulf (2004) reported greater consumer tenderness scores for USDASe-

lect LT compared to SV. However, consumershave also rated tenderness

similarly between USDA Choice LT and SV (Kukowski et al., 2004).

Trends from the Beef Customer Satisfaction study align with the currentresults in terms of consumer ratings for tenderness of top loin, top sir-

loin, and top round (Neely et al., 1998). Ranking of overall tenderness

Table 3

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

Trait Gluteus medius

(n= 36)

Longissimus lumborum

(n= 12)

Semimembranosus

(n= 18)

Serratus ventralis

(n= 40)

SEM2 P-value3

Select Top Choice Select Top Choice Select Top Choice Select Top Choice Muscle QG M QG

IMF, % 3.82y 6.35y 2.95y 6.85y 1.61z 3.41z 7.48x 11.90x 0.88 b0.01 b0.01 0.11

Protein, % 22.93b 22.56b 23.36ab 22.81ab 23.41a 22.97a 20.76c 19.92c 0.19 b0.01 b0.01 0.47

Moisture, % 70.92b 68.82d 71.94ab 68.55d 72.46a 70.96b 69.92c 66.26e 0.63 b0.01 b0.01 0.04

Collagen, % 1.85z 2.11z 1.90z 1.98z 1.71z 1.82z 2.15y 2.44y 0.09 b0.01 b0.01 0.40

pH 5.50z 5.47z 5.61y 5.55y 5.62y 5.55y 5.78x 5.78x 0.03 b0.01 0.09 0.72

1Quality grade: Select (marbling score: slight00 to slight100) or Top Choice (marbling score: modest50 to moderate50).2Pooled (largest) SE of LS means.3Observed signicance levels for main effects of muscle (M), quality grade (QG), and the muscle quality grade interaction.adWithin a row, least squares means without a common superscript differ (Pb 0.05) due to muscle quality grade interaction.xyzWithin a row, least squares means without a common superscript differ (Pb 0.05) due to muscle.

Table 4

The effects of muscle and quality grade1 on the least square means for WarnerBratzler shear force (WBSF) and cooking loss (n= 106).


(n = 36)


(n= 12)

Semimembranosus

(n= 18)

Serratus ventralis

(n = 40)

SEM2 P-value3


WBSF,N 31.48xy 30.79xy 32.07yz 24.42yz 34.23x 33.15x 27.85z 22.56z 1.77 b0.01 b0.01 0.11

Cooking loss, % 25.50 22.74 22.62 22.37 22.78 21.44 23.12 23.54 1.42 0.51 0.36 0.56

1Quality grade: Select (marbling score: slight00 to slight100) or Top Choice (marbling score: modest50 to moderate50).2Pooled (largest) SE of LS means.3Observed signicance levels for main effects of muscle (M), quality grade (QG), and the muscle quality grade interaction.xyz

Within a row, least squares means without a common superscript differ (Pb

0.05) due to muscle.


8/12/2019 1-s2.0-S0309174014001065-main

5/8

of LL, GM, and SM by trained sensory assessors also aligns with the

present ndings (McKeith et al., 1985; Rhee et al., 2004).

3.6. Juiciness

Unlike tenderness, an interaction was observed (P 0.02) between

muscle and quality grade for consumer ratings of juiciness, avor

liking, and overall liking (Table 5). Top Choice SV had more desirable

(P= 0.02) consumer scores for juiciness than any other muscle

quality grade combination, followed by Select SV. The SV had the

greatest pH of all muscles, as well as the greatest IMF percentage,

which could have played a role in consumer juiciness ratings.

Semimembranosus Top Choice and Select steaks had the least desirable

juiciness scores, but did not differ (PN 0.05) between the two grades.

Kukowski et al. (2004)observed similar results to ours when con-

sumers evaluated USDA Choice and Select LT and SV, where SV juiciness

scores were greater than those for LT. However, consumers assigned

greater juiciness scores to USDA Choice LT than SV in a separate study

(Kukowski et al., 2005). In the Beef Customer Satisfaction study (Neely

et al., 1998), consumers scored top loin juicier than top sirloin, which

was in turn was juicier than top round based on in-home steak evalua-

tions. In the current study, however, LL and GM received greater juici-

ness scores than SM, but loin cuts did not differ within their respectivequality grades when cooking method was controlled. Discrepancies

could be partially explained by different cooking methods, which

McKenna et al. (2004)reported can affect consumer ratings for juici-

ness. Results from trained evaluations of juiciness vary from the current

ndings as well as previous consumer work.Rhee et al. (2004)did not

observe any differences in juiciness between LL, GM, and SM; however,

McKeith et al. (1985)reported greater juiciness scores for LL compared

to SM and GM, which had similar scores for juiciness.

3.7. Flavor and overall liking

For all muscles except SM, consumer scores for avor liking and

overall liking were more desirable for Top Choice compared to

Select (Table 5). Consumer scores for avor liking and overall liking

showed similar trendsas consumers rated Top Choice LL and GM higher

(P 0.02) than the remaining muscle quality grade combinations;

however, Top Choice SV was similar to Top Choice GM for avor and

overall liking.

When consumers evaluated USDA Choice SV and LT, they found SV

had more intense avor and SV were more liked, but no differences

were observed between USDA Select SV and LT for avor intensity or

overall liking (Kukowski et al., 2004). In the current study, consumers

rated avor and overall liking similarly for LL, GM, and SV within Select.

Within Top Choice, however, LL received greater scores than SV for

avor and overall liking.Neely et al. (1998)reported more desirable

overall liking scores for Top Choice top loin and top round compared

to Select, but consumers showedno preference forhigher quality grades

of top sirloin butt. Aside from top loin, these results do not fully agree

with the current ndings. Moreover, those consumers (Neely et al.,

1998) preferred top loin over top sirloin regardless of quality grade, as

indicated by more desirable overall liking scores, which conicts with

the current results as Top Choice LL and GM had similarscores for over-

all liking.

3.8. Consumer acceptability scores

As seen inTable 6, both muscle and quality grade inuenced (P

0.05) the percentage of samples rated as acceptable for tenderness,

juiciness,avor liking, and overall liking. The SM showed the lowest

(Pb 0.01) percentage of acceptability for all palatability traits. For ten-

derness, LL and GM had the greatest proportion of acceptable samples,

while SV was intermediate. According to consumers, SV and GM had

the greatest percentage of samples with acceptable juiciness, followed

by LL, which was intermediate to SM. The percentage of samples that

were rated acceptable for avor and overall liking was similar (P

N0.05) for GM, SV, and LL. A decrease(P 0.05) in theproportionof ac-

ceptable samples for each palatability trait was observed as quality

grade decreased from Top Choice to Select.

Table 5

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


(n= 36)


(n = 12)

Semimembranosus (n

=18)

Serratus ventralis

(n= 40)

SEM2 P-value3


Tenderness 62.01xy 71.17xy 60.36x 75.77x 31.83z 37.60z 56.45y 70.60y 2.15 b0.01 b0.01 0.07

Juiciness 57.57d 67.02c 58.45d 70.51bc 48.96e 48.99e 73.21b 82.24a 1.99 b0.01 b0.01 b0.01

Flavor 59.22c 68.78ab 57.17cd 72.07a 50.00e 52.46de 60.22c 66.78b 2.03 b0.01 b0.01 b0.01

Overall liking 59.28c 68.67ab 54.53c 73.95a 42.50d 46.61d 58.05c 68.10b 2.38 b0.01 b0.01 b0.01

1Quality grade: Select (marbling score: slight00 to slight100) or Top Choice (marbling score: modest50 to moderate50).2Pooled (largest) SE of LS means.3Observed signicance levels for main effects of muscle (M), quality grade (QG), and the muscle quality grade interaction.aeWithin a row, least squares means without a common superscript differ (Pb 0.05) due to muscle quality grade interaction.xyzWithin a row, least squares means without a common superscript differ (Pb 0.05) due to muscle.

Table 6

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


(n = 36)

Longissimus

lumborum (n = 12)

Semimembranosus

(n = 18)

Serratus ventralis

(n = 40)

SEM2 P-value3


Ten derness 90.61x 96.15x 88.19x 95.37x 49.91z 60.30z 77.41y 91.41y 3.66 b0.01 b0.01 0.41

Juiciness 91.66x 95.34x 84.47y 90.65y 73.20z 78.50z 95.34x 97.41x 3.34 b0.01 0.03 0.91

Flavor 90.78y 95.48y 89.18y 93.93y 81.79z 83.45z 89.18y 91.58y 2.68 b0.01 0.05 0.69

Overall liking 85.17y 94.75y 83.52y 93.20y 67.33z 73.39z 90.83y 90.83y 3.37 b0.01 b0.01 0.17

1Quality grade: Select (marbling score: slight00 to slight100) or Top Choice (marbling score: modest50 to moderate50).2Pooled (largest) SE of LS means.3Observed signicance levels for main effects of muscle (M), quality grade (QG), and the muscle quality grade interaction.xyz

Within a row, least squares means without a common superscript differ (Pb

0.05) due to muscle.


8/12/2019 1-s2.0-S0309174014001065-main

6/8

3.9. Consumer perceived quality levels

Consumer perceived quality levels are presented inTable 7. Muscle

and quality grade interacted (P 0.03) to inuence the percentage of

samples considered unsatisfactoryand good everyday quality.Top

Choice GM and LL were considered unsatisfactory less often than

any other muscle quality grade combination, while SM were rated

as unsatisfactory more often than all other muscles. Numerically, con-

sumers considered Top Choice SVgood everyday qualityless often

than other muscle quality grade combinations, but this percentage

was similar to Top Choice LL (P N0.05). GM, LL, and SV were rated

as better than everyday qualityand premium qualitymore often

(Pb0.05) than SM, regardless of quality grade. A greater percentage

(Pb 0.01) of Top Choice steaks were considered better than everyday

qualityand premium qualitycompared to Select.

3.10. Correlations

To estimate the extent to which palatability scores and objective

measures inuenced overall liking, correlations between palatability

traits, compositional data, and WBSF were determined (Table 8).

Consumer overall liking was correlated (P b0.01) with consumer

tenderness (r= 0.75) and juiciness ratings (r= 0. 68), butmost highly

correlated with avor liking (r= 0.86). Overall liking, tenderness, juic-

iness, and avor were negatively related (P b0.01) to WBSF (r

0.29). Each of the proximate components was related (Pb 0.01) to

overall liking. As the percentage of IMF increased, overall liking in-

creased, while moisture and protein were inversely related to overall

liking. With all muscles combined, WBSF and proximate components

were associated (P b0.05) with overall liking, but the relationships

were relatively weak.Neely et al. (1998)showed strong, positive rela-

tionships between overall liking with tenderness, juiciness, and avor

desirability of top loin, top sirloin butt, and top round. O'Quinn et al.

(2012)found that fat content had an effect on beefavor of the LL,

and the importanceof beefavor was clearly linked to overall palatabil-

ity. The correlations between palatability traits and overall liking were

similar with those reported byO'Quinn et al. (2012).

Pearson correlations between palatability traits, compositional data,

and WBSF for GM,LL, SM, andSV, respectively, are presented in Tables 9

to12. Coefcients for tenderness, juiciness,avor liking, and overall lik-

ing of LL closely resemble those for all muscles; however, the relation-

ships between overall liking, WBSF, and proximate components were

stronger. Coefcients for tenderness, juiciness, avor liking, and overall

liking of SM indicated weaker relationships than for all muscles. The re-

lationships between overall liking, WBSF, and proximate components

Table 7

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

Quality level Gluteus medius Longissimus

lumborum

Semimembranosus Serratus ventralis SEM2 P-value3


Unsatisfactory 15.01c 3.74d 19.06bc 4.52d 37.96a 28.41ab 15.72c 14.08c 4.82 b0.01 b0.01 0.03

Good everyday quality 50.43ab 39.88bc 52.54a 32.31cd 52.54a 55.92a 50.01ab 26.43d 4.72 b0.01 b0.01 0.01

Better than everyday quality 26.77y 37.42y 19.03y 36.58y 6.58z 12.38z 24.03y 34.07y 4.51 b0.01 b0.01 0.73

Premium quality 6.66y 18.22y 8.26y 25.73y 2.47z 2.47z 9.09y 24.06y 3.97 b0.01 b0.01 0.53

1Quality grade: Select (marbling score: slight00 to slight100) or Top Choice (marbling score: modest50 to moderate50).2Pooled (largest) SE of LS means.3Observed signicance levels for main effects of muscle (M), quality grade (QG), and the muscle quality grade interaction.adWithin a row, least squares means without a common superscript differ (Pb 0.05) due to muscle quality grade interaction.yzWithin a row, least squares means without a common superscript differ (Pb 0.05) due to muscle.

Table 8

Pearson's correlation coefcients for the relationships between consumer sensory scores, proximate data, and WarnerBratzler shear force data a.

Overall liking Tenderness Juiciness Flavor WBSF %IMF %Collagen %Moisture

Tenderness 0.75

Juiciness 0.68 0.60

Flavor 0.86 0.59 0.58

WBSF 0.22 0.21 0.29 0.20

%Intramuscular fat (IMF) 0.31 0.35 0.41 0.25 0.52

%Collagen 0.25 0.28 0.34 0.20 0.33 0.79

%Moisture 0.33 0.35 0.37 0.26 0.49 0.95 0.72

%Protein 0.19 0.20 0.38 0.15 0.48 0.87 0.69 0.72

a

All correlation coefcients were signicant (Pb 0.01).

Table 9

Pearson's correlation coefcients for the relationships between consumer sensory scores, proximate data, and WarnerBratzler shear force data for the gluteus medius.


Tenderness 0.72a

Juiciness 0.73a 0.62a

Flavor 0.88a 0.62a 0.65a

WBSF 0.02 0.01 0.03 0.07

%Intramuscular fat (IMF) 0.24a 0.26a 0.25a 0.21a 0.01

%Collagen 0.18a 0.08 0.19a 0.15b 0.15b 0.53a

%Moisture 0.21a 0.23a 0.21a 0.19a 0.09 0.93a 0.45a

%Protein 0.15b 0.18a 0.20a 0.16b 0.36a 0.53a 0.14b 0.38a

a Correlation coefcients were signicant (Pb 0.01).b

Correlation coef

cients were signi

cant (P b

0.05).


8/12/2019 1-s2.0-S0309174014001065-main

7/8

were not signicant for SM. Overall liking was not correlated

with (PN 0.05) WBSF for GM; however, the remaining coefcients

indicated similar relationships to those of all muscles. For SV, avor

liking (r= 0.87) was highly correlated with overall liking, but tender-

ness (r= 0.65) and juiciness (r= 0.56) showed weaker relationships

to overall liking than observed with other muscles.

4. Conclusions

All three palatability traits played a major role in determining

overall acceptability as indicated by high correlation coefcients for

each trait. Even when consumers scored tenderness low, as with

the SM, superior avor and juiciness could compensate to improve

the overall liking and acceptability of beef. Overall liking of SV and

GM from higher quality carcasses was superior to LL from lower

qualitycarcasses and comparable to LL fromhigher quality carcasses.

The SV Top Choice was most desirable for juiciness compared to all

other muscle quality grade treatments, perhaps due to higher pH

values increasing water-holding capacity within the SV and greater

IMF of SV than any other muscle. Overall, results showed that mar-

keting the GM and SV from Top Choice carcasses on the basis of com-

parable overall consumer acceptability to Top Choice LL could add

additional value to the carcass.

References

AOAC (2005).Ofcial methods of analysis Assoc. Off. Anal. Chem., Arlington, VA (18th ed.).Behrends, J. M., Goodson, K. J., Koohmaraie, M., Shackelford, S. D., Wheeler, T. L., Morgan,

W. W., Reagan, J. O., Gwartney, B.L., Wise, J. W., & Savell, J. W. (2005a). Beef customersatisfaction: Factors affecting consumer evaluations of calcium chloride-injected topsirloin steaks when given instructions for preparation.Journal of Animal Science,83,28692875.

Behrends, J. M., Goodson, K. J., Koohmaraie, M., Shackelford, S. D., Wheeler, T. L., Morgan,W. W.,Reagan, J. O., Gwartney, B.L., Wise, J. W., & Savell, J. W. (2005b). Beef customersatisfaction: USDA quality grade and marination effects on consumer evaluations of

top round steaks. Journal of Animal Science,83, 662

670.Garmyn, A.J., Hilton,G. G.,Mateescu, R.G., Morgan, J. B., Reecy,J. M., Tait,R. G., Jr., Beitz, D.

C., Duan, Q., Schoonmaker, J. P., Mayes, M. S., Drewnoski, M. E., Liu, Q., &VanOverbeke, D. L. (2011).Estimation of relationships between mineral concentra-tion and fatty acid composition of longissimus muscle and beef palatability traits.

Journal of Animal Science,89, 28492858.Gee, A. (2006).Protocol Book 4: For the thawing preparation, cooking and serving of beef for

MSA [Meat Standards Australia] pathway trials. North Sydney: Meat and LivestockAustralia.

Goodson, K. J., Morgan, W. W., Reagan, J. O., Gwartney, B.L., Courington, S. M., Wise, J. W.,& Savell, J. W. (2002).Beef customer satisfaction: Factors affecting consumer evalua-tions of clod steaks. Journal of Animal Science,80, 401408.

Gruber, S. L., Tatum, J.D., Scanga, J. A., Chapman, P. L., Smith, G. C., & Belk, K. E. (2006). Ef-fects of postmortem aging and USDA quality grade on WarnerBratzler shear forcevaluesof seventeenindividual beef muscles.Journalof AnimalScience, 84, 33873396.

Harris, J. J., Miller, R. K., Savell, J. W., Cross, H. R., & Ringer, L. J. (1992). Evaluation of thetenderness of beef top sirloin steaks. Journal of Food Science,57(69), 15.

Johnson, R. C., Chen, C. M., Muller, T. S., Costello, W. J., Romans, J. R., & Jones, K. W. (1988).Characterization of the muscles within the beef forequarter. Journal of Food Science,

53, 12471250.

Table 10

Pearson's correlation coefcients for the relationships between consumer sensory scores, proximate data, and WarnerBratzler shear force data for the longissimusa.


Tenderness 0.78

Juiciness 0.73 0.64

Flavor 0.87 0.62 0.63

WBSF 0.34 0.22 0.28 0.30


%Collagen 0.26 0.25 0.20 0.23 0.27 0.32

%Moisture 0.41 0.30 0.27 0.37 0.71 0.98 0.17%Protein 0.30 0.22 0.26 0.29 0.79 0.73 0.41 0.67

a All correlation coefcients were signicant (Pb 0.01).

Table 11

Pearson's correlation coefcients for the relationships between consumer sensory scores, proximate data, and WarnerBratzler shear force data for the semimembranosus.


Tenderness 0.70a


Flavor 0.80a 0.51a 0.54a

WBSF 0.05 0.15b 0.01 0.03


%Collagen 0.03 0.09 0.03 0.06 0.25a 0.68a

%Moisture 0.02 0.01 0.02 0.01 0.20a 0.93a 0.47a

%Protein 0.04 0.04 0.02 0.02 0.32a 0.71a 0.51a 0.59a


Correlation coefcients were signicant (Pb 0.05).

Table 12

Pearson's correlation coefcients for the relationships between consumer sensory scores, proximate data, and WarnerBratzler shear force data for the Serratus ventralis.


Tenderness 0.65a


Flavor 0.87a 0.50a 0.47a

WBSF 0.16b 0.18a 0.27a 0.17a

%Intramuscular fat (IMF) 0.26a 0.25a 0.24a 0.20a 0.47a

%Collagen 0.15b 0.14b 0.16b 0.12 0.23a 0.76a

%Moisture 0.26a 0.25a 0.24a 0.20a 0.43a 0.98a 0.78a

%Protein 0.23a 0.19a 0.21a 0.17a 0.54a 0.90a 0.55a 0.83a


Correlation coef

cients were signi

cant (Pb

0.05).

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0120http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0045http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0040http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0125http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0030http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0025http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0020http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0015http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0010http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0120

8/12/2019 1-s2.0-S0309174014001065-main

8/8

Killinger, K. M., Calkins, C. R., Umberger, W. J., Feuz, D.M., & Eskridge, K. M. (2004).Con-sumer sensory acceptance and value for beef steaks of similar tenderness, but differ-ing in marbling level.Journal of Animal Science,82, 32943301.

Kukowski, A.C., Maddock, R. J., & Wulf, D.M. (2004). Evaluating consumer acceptability ofvarious muscles from the beef chuck and rib. Journal of Animal Science,82, 521525.

Kukowski, A.C., Maddock, R. J., Wulf, D.M., Fausti, S. W., & Taylor, G. L. (2005). Evaluatingconsumer acceptbailityand willingness to payfor various beef chuck msucles.Journalof Animal Science,83, 26052610.

Lorenzen, C. L., Miller, R. K., Taylor, J. F., Neely, T. R., Tatum, J.D., Wise, J. W., Buyck, M. J.,Reagan, J. O., & Savell, J. W. (2003). Beef customer satisfaction: Trained sensorypanel ratings and WarnerBratzler shear force values.Journal of Animal Science,81,

143

149.Luque,L. D., Johnson, B. J.,Martin, J. N.,Miller, M. F.,Hodgen, J. M.,Hutcheson, J. P., Nichols,W. T., Streeter, M. N., Yates, D. A., Allen, D.M., & Brooks, J. C. (2011). Zilpaterol hydro-chloride supplementation has no effect on the shelf life of ground beef. Journal of

Animal Science,89, 817825.McKeith, F.K., DeVol,D. L., Miles,R. S., Bechtel,P. J., & Carr, T.C. (1985). Chemical and sen-

sory properties of thirteen major beef muscles.Journal of Food Science,50, 869872.McKenna, D. R., Mies, P. D., Baird, B. E., Pfeiffer, K. D., Ellebracht, J. W., & Savell, J. W.

(2005).Biochemical and physical factors affecting discoloration characteristics of 19bovine muscles.Meat Science,70, 665682.

McKenna, D. R., Lorenzen, C. L., Pollok, K. D., Morgan, W. W., Mies, W. L., Harris, J. J.,Murphy, R., McAdams, M., Hale, D. S., & Savell, J. W. (2004). Interrelationships ofbreed type, USDA quality grade, cooking method, and degree of doneness on con-sumer evaluations of beef in Dallas and San Antonio, Texas, USA. Meat Science,66,399406.

Miller, M. F., Carr, M.A., Ramsey, C. B., Crockett, K. L., & Hoover, L. C. (2001). Consumerthresholds for establishing the value of beef tenderness. Journal of Animal Science,79, 30623068.

NAMP(2010). The meat buyer'sguide (6th ed.). Reston, VA:NorthAmerican Meat Proces-

sors Association.Neely, T. R., Lorenzen, C. L., Miller, R. K., Tatum, J.D., Wise, J. W., Taylor, J. F., Buyck, M. J.,

Reagan, J. O.,& Savell, J. W. (1998).Beef customer satisfaction: Role of cut, USDA qual-ity grade, and city on in-home consumer ratings. Journal of Animal Science, 76,10271033.

Nelson, J. L., Dolezal, H. G., Ray, F. K., & Morgan, J. B. (2004). Characterization of certiedAngus Beef steaks from the round, loin, and chuck. Journal of Animal Science,82,14371444.

O'Quinn, T. G., Brooks, J. C., Polkinghorne, R. J., Garmyn, A. J., Johnson, B. J., Starkey, J.D.,Rathmann, R. J., & Miller, M. F. (2012). Consumer assessment of beef strip loin steaksof varying fat levels.Journal of Animal Science,90, 626634.

Paterson, B. C., & Parrish, F. C., Jr. (1986).A sensorypanel and chemical analysis of certainbeef chuck muscles.Journal of Food Science,51, 876879.

Rhee, M. S., Wheeler, T. L., Shackelford, S. D., & Koohmaraie, M. (2004).Variation in palat-ability and biochemical traits within and among eleven beef muscles. Journal of

Animal Science,82, 534550.

Shackelford, S. D., Morgan, J. B., Cross, H. R., & Savell, J. W. (1991). Identication of thresh-old levels for WarnerBratzler shear force in beef top loin steaks.Journal of MuscleFoods,2, 289296.

Smith,G. C., Carpenter, Z. L.,Cross,H. R., Murphey, C. E.,Abraham, H. C., Savell, J. W.,Davis,G.W., Berry,B. W., & Parrish,F. C.,Jr.(1985). Relationshipof USDAmarbling groups topalatability of cooked beef.Journal of Food Quality,7, 289308.

Thompson, J. M. (2004).The effects of marbling onavour and juiciness scores of cookedbeef, after adjusting to a constant tenderness.Australian Journal of Experimental Agri-culture,44, 645652.

Umberger, W. J., Feuz, D.M., Calkins, C. R., & Killinger, K. M. (2000). The value of beefavor:Consumer willingness-to-pay for marbling in beef steaks.Paper presented at the West-ern Agricultural Economics Association Annual Meetings, Vancouver, British Colum-bia (Retrieved fromhttp://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/36397/1/sp00um01.pdf).

U.S. Census Bureau (2012). 2012 Statistical Abstract.http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/(Accessed December 12, 2013)

USDA (1997).United States standards for grades of carcass beef. In A.M. Service (Ed.),Washington, DC.: United States Department of Agriculture.

VonSeggern, D.D., Calking, C. R., Johnson, D.D., Brickler, J. E., & Gwartney, B.L. (2005).

Muscle proling: Characterizing the muscles of the beef chuck and round.MeatScience,71, 3951.

http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0115http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/36397/1/sp00um01.pdfhttp://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/36397/1/sp00um01.pdfhttp://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0165http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0160http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0160http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/36397/1/sp00um01.pdfhttp://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/36397/1/sp00um01.pdfhttp://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0115http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0110http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0145http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0140http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0135http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0105http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0100http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0095http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0130http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0090http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0085http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0080http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0075http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0070http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0065http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0060http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0055http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0050http://refhub.elsevier.com/S0309-1740(14)00106-5/rf0050

1-s2.0-S0309174014001065-main

Documents

Transcript of 1-s2.0-S0309174014001065-main