Consumer Sensory Evaluation of the Impact of Bone-In Versus Boneless Cuts on Beef Palatability

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine palatability traits of beef cuts of differing bone status and quality grade. Study Description: Paired (n = 12 pairs; 24 total/cut/grade) boneless and bone-in ribeye rolls, and short loins were procured. Short loins were fabricated into boneless strip loins with corresponding bone-in tenderloins or bone-in strip loins with boneless tenderloins. Post aging, subprimal cuts were fabricated into steaks that were randomly selected for further analysis. Consumer sensory panelists (n = 144) were recruited from Manhattan, KS, and the surrounding area and paid for their participation in the study. Panels were conducted in a lecture-style classroom at Kansas State University. Results: In totality, bone status had a minimal impact on palatability traits. Bone state had no impact (P \u3e 0.05) on consumer juiciness and overall liking for tenderloins and ribeyes, but in the strip loin, bone-in steaks were rated juicier (P \u3c 0.05) and higher (P \u3c 0.05) for overall liking when compared to boneless steaks. Moreover, bone state had no impact (P \u3e 0.05) on consumer tenderness and flavor ratings for any of the three cuts. Bone state had no impact (P \u3e 0.05) on the percentage of consumers that rated juiciness as acceptable for tenderloins and ribeyes, but in strip loins, bone-in steaks had a higher (P \u3c 0.05) percentage of acceptable consumer responses than boneless cuts. The percentage of acceptable samples for tenderness and overall acceptability were not (P \u3e 0.05) impacted by bone state in tenderloins and strip loins; however, in ribeyes, the percentage of acceptable consumer ratings was higher (P \u3c 0.05) for bone-in cuts for both traits. Bone state also did not (P \u3e 0.05) impact premium, better than everyday, and everyday quality perceptions among ribeyes; but the percentage of consumers rating ribeye samples unsatisfactory was higher (P \u3c 0.05) for boneless ribeye steaks. The Bottom Line: A similar overall eating experience could be derived from a boneless or bone-in steak from the same cut and quality grade

Trained Sensory Panel Evaluation of the Impact of Bone-In Versus Boneless Cuts on Beef Palatability

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine palatability traits of beef cuts of differing bone status and quality grade. Study Description: Paired (n = 12 pairs; 24 total/cut/grade) boneless ribeye rolls, export ribs, and short loins were procured. Short loins were fabricated into boneless strip loins with corresponding bone-in tenderloins, or bone-in strip loins with boneless tenderloins. Post-aging, subprimals were fabricated into steaks that were randomly selected for further analysis. A total of 18 trained sensory panels were conducted at the Kansas State University Meat Science Sensory Lab to determine differences in palatability traits. Results: In totality, bone status had a minimal impact on palatability traits. Nonetheless, bone-in tenderloins and bone-in ribeyes were rated more flavorful (P \u3c 0.05) than boneless cuts from the same muscle. There were no beef (P \u3e 0.05) flavor intensity differences observed for bone-in and boneless strip steaks. Bone state had no effect (P \u3e 0.05) on initial juiciness, myofibrillar tenderness, overall tenderness, or Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF) for any cut. Bone-in strip loin samples were rated juicier (P \u3c 0.05) than tenderloins and boneless ribeye samples. Tenderloin samples were rated higher (P \u3c 0.05) for myofibrillar and overall tenderness than strip loin and ribeye steaks, which were which were rated similar (P \u3e 0.05) by trained panelists. Furthermore, there was no difference (P \u3e 0.05) in the WBSF values for strips and ribeyes, with tenderloin samples having the lowest (P \u3c 0.05) average peak force. Lastly, USDA Choice samples were rated higher (P \u3c 0.05) for all palatability traits and had lower (P \u3c 0.05) WBSF values than Select samples. The Bottom Line: A similar overall eating experience could be derived from a boneless or bone-in steak from the same cut and quality grade

Evaluation of Thawing Curves of Beef Strip Loin Steaks Using Various Thawing Methods

Objective:The objective of this study was to evaluate and determine thaw rate and time of strip steaks thawed using methods that are recommended by the U.S. Department of Agriculture and those commonly used by consumers. Study Description:Strip steaks collected from a beef packing facility were randomly assigned a thaw method. Initially, steaks were vacuum packaged and then frozen at -40°F until thawed. Two thawing methods were USDA-approved: thawing in a refrigerator (REF) and in cold water (CW); while the other two methods evaluated are commonly used by consumers: thawing on the countertop (CT) and in hot water (HW). The thawing temperatures were: REF at 35.6–37.4°F in the refrigerator; CW maintained at 35.6–37.4°F in water; CT at 68°F; and HW at 104°F. Temperatures of the steaks were recorded every 30 minutes for CW and REF, every 10 minutes for CT, and every thirty seconds for HW to determine the thaw time and rate. Results:Thawing time differed (P\u3c0.05) among treatments in this study (HWP\u3c0.05) among treatments with a similar trend (HWP\u3c0.05) from REF until 5 hours prior to thaw point, at which point the temperatures were similar (P\u3e0.05) for the remaining thawing period. Moreover, REF steaks were warmer (P\u3c0.05) than CW steaks from 13 to 5 hours prior to thaw point. In the final 5 hours, CW and REF steaks were similar (P\u3e0.05) in temperature. Furthermore, among all treatments, CT steaks were the coldest(P\u3c0.05) from 5 to 2 hours prior to thaw point. However, in the final 2 hours, CT steaks were at similar (P\u3e0.05) temperatures as CW and REF. Due to the short period of thawing time and the observed rapid thawing rate, HW samples were the coldest (P\u3c0.05) in the final 10 minutes prior to thaw point. The Bottom Line:Of the four thaw methods utilized in this study, the safest methods are those approved by the USDA (CW and REF). Thawing meat on the countertop or in hot water may be efficient and convenient methods for consumers, but it is important to take the extra time to thaw meat properly for safety

Impact of Disclosing Labeling Information on Consumer Sensory Evaluation of Ground Beef From a Similar Source

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the effect of providing labeling information prior to evaluation on consumers’ palatability ratings of ground beef from a similar source. Study Description: Ground beef (80% lean/20% fat) from a similar source was obtained and fabricated into 0.25 lb patties. Patties were fed to consumers who evaluated each sample for different palatability traits. Consumers (n = 105) were informed about the labeling information of each sample prior to evaluation. Labels utilized: all natural, animal raised without added antibiotics (WA), animal raised without added hormones (WH), fresh never frozen (FNF), grass-fed, locally sourced, premium quality, U.S. Department of Agriculture organic (ORG), and a blank sample (NONE). Results: There were no differences (P \u3e 0.05) in consumer ratings for tenderness, juiciness, texture, and overall liking for all labeling terms evaluated. When ground beef was labeled as locally sourced, there were large increases (P \u3c 0.05) in consumer ratings for tenderness, juiciness, flavor, texture, overall liking, and purchasing intent. Moreover, labeling ground beef as grass-fed resulted in large increases (P \u3c 0.05) in consumer ratings for tenderness, juiciness, flavor, texture, and purchasing intent. Except for grass-fed, overall liking ratings increased (P \u3c 0.05) when the additional labeling information was provided to consumers. Additionally, all the purchasing intent ratings increased (P \u3c 0.05) when information was provided except for when the ground beef was labeled as premium quality. No differences (P \u3e 0.05) were found in the percentage of samples rated as acceptable for tenderness, flavor, and texture for all the labeling terms evaluated. Labeling ground beef as all natural, grass-fed, locally sourced, and premium quality increased (P \u3c 0.05) the percentage of samples rated as acceptable for tenderness. For overall acceptability, labeling ground beef as WA resulted in a decrease (P \u3c 0.05) in the percentage of samples rated as acceptable. The Bottom Line: Results from this study indicate that consumers’ eating experiences are swayed by the labeling terms found on packages. Those marketing beef products to consumers need to carefully select the marketing materials utilized

Changes in the Perception of Ground Beef Quality as a Result of Price Per Pound Labeling

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the effect of perceived palatability on ground beef patties by providing consumers with differing price per pound labels. Study Description: Ground beef chubs (n = 15) of 80% lean/20% fat composition were used for all samples. Patties were formed 11 days after processing into 0.25 lb patties using a commercial patty former. Samples were cooked to 160°F and served to consumers to determine different quality attributes. Consumers were given the following prices for each sample: Ultra-High - $6.25/lb; High -$5.00/lb; Medium - $3.75/lb; Low -$2.50/lb; Ultra-Low - $1.25/lb or no information provided (NONE). Bottom Line: Based on this research, consumer’s quality perception is affected by price variations, but not the willingness to purchase, indicating consumers are not willing to pay more for ground beef even with an improved eating experience

Consumer Sensory Evaluation of Ground Beef and Plant-Based Ground Beef Alternatives Used in a Taco Application

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate consumer preferences for palatability traits and consumer acceptability of three plant-based protein alternatives and ground beef in a taco application. Study Description: Three commercially available plant-based ground beef alternative (GBA) treatments (n = 20) were selected based upon industry prevalence. The GBAs’ were identified as the most popular in the marketing sectors of foodservice (FGBA), retail (RGBA), and traditional (TGBA). One ground beef (80% lean; 20% fat) treatment (n = 20) was selected. Samples were crumbled into a skillet and cooked to a surface temperature of 180°F. Following cooking, a generic taco seasoning was added following manufacturer’s instruction. Samples were served on a flour tortilla with the opportunity to add cheese, lettuce, and tomatoes. The Bottom Line: This research indicates consumers preferred ground beef to ground beef alternatives when used as a crumbled protein ingredient in tacos. Ground beef should be marketed as a distinct eating experience to consumers at foodservice and retail when plant-based ground beef alternatives are available in similar crumbled products

Consumer Sensory Evaluation of Ground Beef and Plant-Based Ground Beef Alternatives Used in a Hamburger Application

Objective: The objective of this study was to evaluate the palatability traits and consumer acceptance of three plant-based ground beef alternatives in comparison to ground beef in a foodservice-like hamburger application. Study Description: Three popular plant-based ground beef alternatives (GBA) and 80% lean, 20% fat composition ground beef chubs (n = 20) were selected for consumer analysis. Samples were cooked to an internal temperature of 160°F, plated on a bun and served to consumers with the opportunity to apply ketchup, mustard, cheese, lettuce, and pickles. Consumers evaluated the differences in palatability traits and purchase intent for the samples identified as: Ground Beef, Foodservice GBA, Retail GBA, and Traditional GBA. The Bottom Line: This research indicates the use of ground beef and ground beef alternatives provide different eating experiences when consumed as a complete hamburger and should be marketed as such by the foodservice and retail sectors

Prospective evaluation of echocardiographic parameters and cardiac biomarkers in healthy dogs eating four custom-formulated diets

IntroductionDiet-associated dilated cardiomyopathy (DCM) has been suspected in breeds that have not been previously noted to have a predisposition to the DCM phenotype. This study hypothesized that over 210 days, dogs fed diets with varying amounts of animal-sourced protein and carbohydrate sources would not be negatively impacted in terms of their cardiac parameters and function.MethodsThirty-two purebred beagles and 33 mixed-breed hounds were randomized into four diet groups and studied for 210 days. The diet groups were as follows: the high-animal-protein grain-free (HAGF) group, the low-animal-protein grain-free (LAGF) group, the high-animal-protein grain-inclusive (HAGI), and the low-animal-protein grain-inclusive (LAGI) group. Cardiac-specific biomarkers, endomyocardial biopsies, and linear and volumetric echocardiographic parameters were evaluated.ResultsThere was a treatment-by-day-by-breed effect observed for the normalized left ventricular internal diameter at end-diastole (p = 0.0387) and for the normalized left ventricular internal diameter at end-systole (p = 0.0178). On day 210, mixed-breed hounds fed the LAGI diet had a smaller normalized left ventricular internal diameter at end-diastole than on day 90. On day 210, beagles fed the LAGF diet had a larger normalized left ventricular internal diameter at end-systole than those fed the LAGI diet. Fractional shortening for beagles in the LAGF group was significantly lower (p = 0.007) than for those in the HAGI and LAGI groups. Cardiac-specific biomarkers and endomyocardial biopsies were not significantly different between breeds, diets, and various time points.DiscussionThis study did not detect the development of cardiac dysfunction throughout the study period through the echocardiographic parameters measured, select cardiac biomarkers, or endomyocardial biopsies. There were noted interactions of treatment, breed, and time; therefore, isolating a diet association was not possible. Future research should further investigate the other factors that may help to identify the variable(s) and possible mechanisms underlying suspected diet-associated DCM in dogs

Impact of Disclosing Fat Content on Consumer Sensory Evaluation of Ground Beef From a Similar Source

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the impact of providing consumers with information regarding the fat content of ground beef on the consumer’s eating experience. Study Description: Ground beef chubs that were 80% lean/20% fat (n = 15/panel type) were obtained, and 0.25-lb patties were fabricated from the chubs. Chubs were assigned randomly to panels. Panelists received samples labeled as the following: 90% lean/10% fat (90/10), 80% lean/20% fat (80/20), 73% lean/27% fat (73/27), lean, extra lean, and one sample with no information given (NONE). Samples were evaluated by consumers (n = 105), who were provided information regarding treatment labels prior to evaluation, on 0- to 100-point line scales for tenderness, juiciness, flavor, texture overall liking, and purchasing intent. Consumers also rated each trait as acceptable or unacceptable. Ground beef with 90/10, 80/20, and 73/27 labels resulted in a large increase (P \u3c 0.05) in consumer ratings for tenderness, flavor, and overall liking. The Bottom Line: Presenting information regarding fat content to consumers influenced perceived palatability of ground beef. Today’s consumers are paying closer attention to labeling statements than in the past. Results from this study support this trend, indicating consumers’ eating experiences are affected by the fat content labeling found on ground beef packages. Ground beef marketing decisions should consider the information incorporated on packaging, including fat content, as there is an impact on consumers’ palatability experience

Determination of Consumer Color and Discoloration Thresholds for Purchase of Retail Ground Beef When Evaluating Multiple Days of Display Simultaneously

Objective: The objective of this study was to identify the threshold for color and discoloration for consumers to purchase ground beef in a simulated retail display and to determine the best objective measurement to predict consumer purchase intent. Study Description: For this study, 180 1-lb 80% lean/20% fat ground beef packages were assigned to a day of retail display (day 0–9). Consumers (n = 216) and trained descriptive panelists evaluated ground beef samples from each day of display simultaneously. Instrumental L* (lightness), a* (redness), and b* (yellowness) values were collected, and spectral data were recorded. Logistic and simple linear regression models were calculated for consumer likelihood to purchase and appearance ratings. Pearson correlation coefficients were calculated for all measurements. The Bottom Line: The models generated from this study provide the ability to predict consumer willingness to purchase ground beef of varying days of retail display and provide ground beef producers an indication of potential consumer purchasing behaviors based upon objective values that are easy to measure