Consumer Assessment of Beef Tenderloin Steaks from Various USDA Quality Grades at 3 Degrees of Doneness Travis G. O’Quinn, J. Chance Brooks, and Markus F. Miller
A consumer study was conducted to determine palatability ratings of beef tenderloin steaks from USDA Choice, USDA Select, and USDA Select with marbling scores from Slight 50 to 100 (USDA High Select) cooked to various degrees of doneness. Steaks were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 degree of doneness categories: very-rare, mediumrare, or well-done. Consumers (N = 315) were screened for preference of degree of doneness and fed 4 samples of their preferred doneness (a warm-up and one from each USDA quality grade treatment in a random order). Consumers evaluated steaks on an 8-point verbally anchored hedonic scale for tenderness, juiciness, flavor, and overall like as well as rated steaks as acceptable or unacceptable for all palatability traits. Quality grade had no effect (P > 0.05) on consumer ratings for tenderness, juiciness, flavor, and overall like scores, with all traits averaging above a 7 (“like very much”) on the 8-point scale. In addition, no differences (P > 0.05) were found in the percentage of samples rated as acceptable for all palatability traits, with more than 94% of samples rated acceptable for each trait in all quality grades evaluated. Steaks cooked to well-done had lower (P < 0.05) juiciness scores than steaks cooked to very-rare or medium-rare and were rated lower for tenderness (P < 0.05) than steaks cooked to a very-rare degree of doneness. Results indicate consumers were not able to detect differences in tenderness, juiciness, flavor, or overall like among beef tenderloin steaks from USDA Choice and Select quality grades.
Abstract:
Keywords: beef, consumer, marbling, palatability, tenderloin
The high palatability ratings and percentage of samples rated as acceptable for each palatability trait in this study indicate both USDA Choice and Select tenderloin steaks produce an eating experience that meets consumer beef eating expectations and provides no evidence for quality grade based marketing between these 2 groups.
Practical Application:
S: Sensory & Food Quality
Introduction The effect of marbling and USDA quality grade on the palatability of beef has been the major focus of numerous studies. The majority of these studies have concluded increasing marbling level has a positive effect on beef palatability; however, the effect differs among muscles. The effect of marbling and USDA quality grade on palatability has been reported on top loin steaks (O’Quinn and others 2012; Emerson and others 2013; Corbin and others 2015), top sirloin steaks (Neely and others 1998; Savell and others 1999; Hunt and others 2014), rib steaks (Parrish and others 1973; Tatum and others 1980; Guelker and others 2013), top round steaks (Neely and others 1999; Lorenzen and others 2003; Behrends and others 2005), eye of round steaks (Smith and others 1987; Luchak and others 1998), bottom round steaks (Smith and others 1987), and the muscles of the chuck (Kukowski and others 2004; Hunt and others 2014). However, published reports detailing the effect of USDA quality grade on the palatability of beef tenderloin steaks are lacking. Beef tenderloins have the highest value of all subprimals from the beef carcass (USDA 2014). In addition, the premium for USDA Choice tenderloins over USDA Select is greater than all other no MS 20141787 Submitted 10/27/2014, Accepted 12/16/2014. Authors O’Quinn is with 247 Weber Hall, Dept. of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State Univ., Manhattan, KS 66506, U.S.A. Authors Brooks and Miller are with Box 42162, Dept. of Animal and Food Sciences, Texas Tech Univ., Lubbock, TX 79409, U.S.A. Direct inquiries to author: O’Quinn ([email protected]).
S444
Journal of Food Science r Vol. 80, Nr. 2, 2015
subprimals (USDA 2014). With record high beef prices and the economic downturn in the United States over the past half-decade, the need for foodservice institutions to reduce expenses is greater than ever. If increased quality grade has no effect on the palatability of beef tenderloins, then paying premium dollars for USDA Choice rather than USDA Select would not be advantageous for foodservice establishments. Therefore, the objective of this study was to measure the effects of USDA quality grade on the palatability traits of beef tenderloin steaks when cooked to various degrees of doneness as determined by consumers.
Materials and Methods Product Beef tenderloin steaks (psoas major; N = 315; 105 per treatment) weighing approximately 200 g, aged approximately 21 d, representing 3 USDA quality grades (USDA Choice, USDA Select, and USDA Select with marbling scores from Slight 50 to 100 [USDA High Select]; USDA 1997] were vacuum packaged and shipped in the absence of light at 2 to 4 °C to the Texas Tech Univ. Gordon W. Davis Meat Science Laboratory. High Select was chosen as a treatment to determine if a sourced USDA Select product representing only the top half of the quality grade would be produce a more consistent eating experience than commodity Select. Steaks were stored in the absence of light at 2 to 4 °C for 24 to 48 h before sensory panel evaluation. R C 2015 Institute of Food Technologists
doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.12775 Further reproduction without permission is prohibited
Consumer assessment of beef tenderloin . . .
Degree of doneness
Percentage cook loss
SEMc
10.4a 15.2b 23.7c
0.19 0.20 0.24
unacceptable. If a palatability trait was rated as unacceptable, consumers were asked to state a reason.
Statistical analysis A completely randomized design with a split-plot arrangement of factors with degree of doneness as the main-plot factor and USDA quality grade as the subplot factor was used as the model. Note: Least squares means in the same column with different letters (a,b,c) differ (P < The fixed effects of USDA quality grade, degree of doneness, and 0.01). a Percentage of cook loss calculated by ([raw weight − cooked weight]/raw the USDA quality grade × degree of doneness interaction were weight) × 100. b Degree of doneness determined visually by comparison to the Beef Steak Color Guide analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS (Version 9.3; SAS (NCBA 2008). Inst. Inc., Cary, N.C., U.S.A.). Acceptability data were analyzed c SE of the least squares mean. using the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS with a model that included a binomial error distribution. When the F-test on the fixed effect was significant, the PDIFF option was used to separate treatment Preparation means with α = 0.05. The FREQUENCY procedure of SAS was Tenderloin steaks from each quality grade were randomly as- used to summarize demographic data. signed to one of 3 degree of doneness categories: very-rare, medium-rare, or well-done. Steak weights were recorded before Results and Discussion and after cooking and the percentage of cooking loss was calculated (Table 1). Steaks were prepared on a flat-top grill (Model IR- USDA quality grade 6-GT36-CC, Imperial, Corona, Calif., U.S.A.) at approximately Analysis revealed no interaction (P > 0.05) between USDA 204 °C by culinary personnel who were trained to cook steaks to quality grade and degree of doneness for all palatability traits and visual degree of doneness end-points using restaurant experience, acceptability percentages. The effects of USDA quality grade on touch, and cook time. Each steak was seasoned with a proprietary consumer palatability scores are presented in Table 3. Analysis spice blend before cooking to simulate a steak eating experience revealed USDA quality grade had no effect (P > 0.05) on tenthat would typically be found in a restaurant setting. Samples were derness, juiciness, flavor, or overall like ratings. Moreover, all traits turned once, half-way through cooking. After cooking, steaks had an average rating of more than 7 on the 8-point scale. A rating were divided into 3, equally sized portions (approximately 56 g) of 7 corresponded with “like very much,” indicating consumers, and served immediately to consumers. A score of visual degree of on average, had a strong preference for the tenderness, juiciness, doneness was recorded for each steak using the Beef Steak Color flavor, and overall like of tenderloin steaks, regardless of quality Guide (NCBA 2008), which had been assigned a numerical score grade. These high ratings for juiciness and flavor may be the result (1 = very-rare, 2 = rare, 3 = medium-rare, 4 = medium, 5 = of the “halo effect” (Meilgaard and others 2007). Tenderloin steaks well-done, 6 = very well-done). have been reported as having Warner–Bratzler shear (WBS) force values of 2.6 to 3.0 kg (Shackelford and others 1995; Belew and others 2003), which corresponds to a tenderness rating of “very Sensory panel tender” (Belew and others 2003). It is possible that the high ratings The Texas Tech Univ. Institutional Review Board approved for tenderness in this study positively influenced and inflated the procedures for use of human subjects for sensory panel evalua- other palatability ratings for juiciness and flavor. tions. A total of 315 consumers (n = 105 consumers/degree of Effects of USDA quality grade on the percentage of samples doneness)—recruited from Lubbock and the surrounding com- rated as acceptable for each palatability trait are presented in munities and paid to participate in the study—were screened for Table 4. USDA quality grade had no effect (P > 0.05) on the preference of degree of doneness. Consumers were only fed steaks percentage of samples rated as acceptable by consumers for tenof their preferred degree of doneness and were only allowed to derness, juiciness, flavor, and overall like. Similar to the palatability participate once. Sensory panels were conducted in the Texas Tech trait ratings, all percentages were very high. All traits were found Univ. Animal and Food Science Building under florescent lights. to have more than 94% of samples rated as acceptable, with quality Panelists were randomly assigned to individual sensory booths. grade having no significant influence. Two panels of 36 consumers and one panel of 33 consumers Results from this study indicate no palatability advantage in were conducted on 3 consecutive nights, one for each degree of USDA Choice beef tenderloin steaks over USDA Select tenderdoneness. Panelists were given a cup of water, apple juice, and loin steaks. Previous studies have found little tenderness variation unsalted crackers for cleansing the palate between samples, an ex- among tenderloins of various quality grades. Gruber and others pectorant cup, and a plastic knife and fork. Panelists were given (2006) found no difference between USDA Average and High verbal instructions before the start of panels and each filled out a Choice tenderloin steaks and USDA Select tenderloin steaks for demographic questionnaire (Table 2). Each panelist was served a WBS force values. Additionally, Shackelford and others (1995) warm-up sample and one sample from each USDA quality grade found beef tenderloins to be the most tender and least variable treatment (USDA Choice, USDA Select, and USDA High Se- for tenderness among all muscles studied. Moreover, Shackelford lect) in a random order. Each sample was identified by a unique and others (1995) found no tenderness differences among tender3-digit number. Panelists characterized steaks on an 8-point ver- loins from different quality grades and thus proposed tenderloins bally anchored hedonic scale for tenderness, juiciness, flavor, and should be marketed without regard to USDA quality grade. Reoverall like (8 = like extremely, 7 = like very much, 6 = like sults from this are in agreement with the findings of Shackelford moderately, 5 = like slightly, 4 = dislike slightly, 3 = dislike mod- and others (1995) and indicate no palatability-based justification erately, 2 = dislike very much, 1 = dislike extremely), as well as for premium marketing of USDA Choice tenderloins over USDA rated tenderness, juiciness, flavor, and overall like as acceptable or Select tenderloins (USDA 2014). Very-rare Medium-rare Well-done
Vol. 80, Nr. 2, 2015 r Journal of Food Science S445
S: Sensory & Food Quality
Table 1–Percentage of cook lossa by degree of donenessb for beef tenderloin steaks.
Consumer assessment of beef tenderloin . . . Table 2–Demographic characteristics of consumers (n = 315) who participated in beef tenderloin steak sensory panels. Characteristic Gender Household size
Household income Age (y)
Ethnicity
Average annual household income
Highest level of education completed
Weekly beef consumption
Response
Percentage of consumers
Male Female 1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People 5 People 6 People > 6 People Single income Dual income Under 18 18–34 35–50 Over 50 African-American Caucasian Hispanic Other Under $20,000 $20,000 to 29,999 $30,000 to 49,999 $50,000 to 69,999 $70,000 to 100,000 Greater than $100,000 No high school High school Some college College Postgraduate None 1 to 3 times 4 to 6 times 7 or more times
45.8 54.2 13.4 25.8 17.0 28.1 12.1 2.6 1.0 31.1 68.9 1.6 28.0 40.8 29.6 0.6 88.4 10.3 0.7 5.3 6.0 16.3 18.0 35.7 18.7 2.6 16.1 37.4 31.3 12.6 0.3 41.9 48.2 9.6
Table 3–Effects of USDA quality grade and degree of donenessa on consumer sensory scoresb of beef tenderloin steaks.
S: Sensory & Food Quality
USDA quality grade Palatability trait Tenderness Juiciness Flavor Overall liking
Choice 7.28 7.32 7.04 7.19
High
selectc
7.21 7.21 7.11 7.13
Degree of doneness
Select
SEMd
P – value
Very-rare
Medium-rare
Well-done
SEMd
P-value
7.27 7.18 7.19 7.19
0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06
0.604 0.166 0.217 0.713
7.35a 7.34a 7.12 7.17
7.23ab 7.29a 7.11 7.22
7.17b 7.07b 7.10 7.12
0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05
0.045 0.001 0.957 0.400
Note: Least squares means in the same row and section (USDA quality grade or degree of doneness) with different letters (a and b) differ (P < 0.05). a Degree of doneness determined visually by comparison to the Beef Steak Color Guide (NCBA, 2008). b Sensory scores: 6 = like moderately; 7 = like very much; 8 = like extremely. c High Select = USDA Select with marbling score of Slight 50 to 100. d SE of the least squares treatment means.
USDA quality grade has been shown to have a large effect on the palatability of the longissimus dorsi (Smith and others 1987; O’Quinn and others 2012; Emerson and others 2013), a muscle that rates moderate in terms of connective tissue (Koohmaraie and others 1988; Torrescano and others 2003) and sarcomere length (Herring and others 1965; Hunt and Hedrick 1977). However, the effect of quality grade on the palatability of muscles that contain a greater amount of connective tissue and are consequently tougher is less pronounced. Quality grade has been shown to have little to no effect on the palatability traits of top sirloin steaks (Neely and others 1998; Savell and others 1999; Lorenzen and others 2003) as well as little effect on top round steaks (Neely and others 1999), and has been shown to have no effect on WBS force values of steaks from the eye of round, top round, and bottom round (Smith and others 1985). Results from this study indicate that the palatability of tenderloin steaks is also not affected by USDA
S446 Journal of Food Science r Vol. 80, Nr. 2, 2015
quality grade. This lack of difference in palatability is believed to be the result of low connective tissue levels and increased sarcomere length. The tenderloin has been shown to have the longest sarcomeres of the muscles in the beef carcass (Hostetler and others 1970; Torrescano and others 2003) and possess the least amount of total collagen (Prost and others 1975; Torrescano and others 2003). It is believed in beef tenderloin steaks, as in many tough muscles, that palatability ratings are more directly driven by other factors affecting eating quality and palatability differences because of changes in intramuscular fat level are overshadowed by the inherent physiological properties of the muscle. The results of this study, combined with the previous findings of authors who evaluated inherently tough muscles, indicate USDA quality grade has the largest effect on muscles that are intermediate in tenderness and has only minimal effects on the palatability of muscles that are inherently more extreme in tenderness.
Consumer assessment of beef tenderloin . . . Table 4–Percentage of samples by USDA quality grade and degree of donenessa rated acceptable for tenderness, juiciness, flavor, and overall like by consumers for beef tenderloin steaks. USDA quality grade Palatability trait Tenderness Juiciness Flavor Overall liking
Choice 98.46 99.07 94.75 97.53
High
Selectb
96.89 97.51 95.37 97.84
Degree of doneness
Select
SEMc
P-value
Very-rare
Medium-rare
Well-done
SEMc
P – value
97.53 95.99 96.91 97.84
1.09 0.82 1.50 1.08
0.600 0.051 0.587 0.974
97.20 99.07a 94.44 97.53
96.91 97.82ab 95.37 99.07
98.78 95.68b 97.22 96.60
1.09 0.82 1.50 1.08
0.452 0.028 0.429 0.291
a
Degree of doneness determined visually by comparison to the Beef Steak Color Guide (NCBA, 2008). Select = USDA Select with marbling score of Slight 50 to 100. SE of the least squares treatment means. Least squares means in the same row and section (USDA quality grade or degree of doneness) with different letters (a and b) differ (P < 0.05).
b High c
Table 5–Reasons stated by consumers for rating tenderness as unacceptable for beef tenderloin steaks. Reason Too tough Otherc Chewy Stringy Too tender Total a
Percentage of unacceptable responsea
Percentage of total studyb
34.8 30.4 13.0 13.0 8.7 –
0.85 0.74 0.32 0.32 0.21 2.44
Percentage of samples marked unacceptable for tenderness with listed reason. of samples from total study marked unacceptable for tenderness with listed reason. Other reasons stated by consumers: “hard to cut”; “hard to chew”; “grainy”; “mushy”; “seared edges too much”; “over cooked”; “spongy.”
b Percentage c
Table 6–Reasons stated by consumers for rating juiciness as unacceptable for beef tenderloin steaks. Reason
Percentage of unacceptable responsea
Percentage of total studyb
Too dry Otherc Total
80.0 20.0 –
2.12 0.53 2.65
a
Percentage of samples marked unacceptable for juiciness with listed reason. of samples from total study marked unacceptable for juiciness with listed reason. Other reasons stated by consumers: “cooked too much”; “missing plate juice”; “very spicy”; “too much in your mouth after every bite”; “no, no, no.”
Table 7–Reasons stated by consumers for rating flavor as unacceptable for beef tenderloin steaks. Reason Seasoning Not enough flavor Otherc Off flavor Total a
Percentage of unacceptable responsea
Percentage of total studyb
41.5 39.0 14.6 4.9 –
1.80 1.69 0.64 0.21 4.34
Percentage of samples marked unacceptable for flavor with listed reason. of samples from total study marked unacceptable for flavor with listed reason. Other reasons stated by consumers: “cooked too long”; “not as good as the look”; “too rare”; “not enough flaming”; “tasted like blood”; “not as good as the others.”
b Percentage c
Degree of doneness Effects of degree of doneness on consumer palatability scores are presented in Table 3. Degree of doneness had no effect (P > 0.05) on consumer rating scores for overall liking and flavor. However, consumers who preferred well-done rated steaks lower for tenderness (P < 0.05) than consumers who preferred steaks cooked to very-rare. In addition, well-done steaks were rated lower for juiciness (P < 0.05) than steaks cooked to very-rare and medium-rare degrees of doneness. Degree of doneness effects on consumer acceptability of palatability traits are presented in Table 4. Degree of doneness had no effect (P > 0.05) on the percentage of samples rated as acceptable for tenderness and flavor. Steaks cooked to well-done had a lower percentage (P < 0.05) of samples rated acceptable for juiciness than steaks cooked to very-rare. However, well-done steaks had a similar (P > 0.05) percentage of samples rated acceptable for overall like as very-rare and medium-rare prepared samples.
Numerous studies have shown a decrease in palatability associated with elevated degrees of doneness (Parrish and others 1973; Cross and others 1976; Luchak and others 1998). In this study, tenderness and juiciness ratings decreased as degree of doneness increased. However, no differences in the percentage of samples rated acceptable for overall like were observed among the 3 degrees of doneness. Because consumers were screened for degree of doneness preference and only fed steaks of their preferred doneness, it can be deduced that consumers who prefer well-done may be more accepting of a steak that rates lower for tenderness and juiciness than consumers who prefer lower degrees of doneness. In addition, these results indicate flavor may be more important to consumers who prefer well-done and may have greater influence on overall beef acceptability for these consumers than tenderness and juiciness. These findings are consistent with a previous study evaluating beef purchasing motivators, in which juiciness was rated less important and flavor more important to consumers who
Vol. 80, Nr. 2, 2015 r Journal of Food Science S447
S: Sensory & Food Quality
b Percentage c
Consumer assessment of beef tenderloin . . . Table 8–Reasons stated by consumers for rating overall like as unacceptable for beef tenderloin steaks. Reason
Percentage of unacceptable responsea
Percentage of total studyb
27.3 18.2 18.2 13.6 13.6 4.5 4.5 –
0.63 0.42 0.42 0.32 0.32 0.11 0.11 2.33
Cooking Flavor Otherc Tenderness Flavor and tenderness Juiciness Juiciness and tenderness Total a
Percentage of samples marked unacceptable for overall like with listed reason. of samples from total study marked unacceptable for overall like with listed reason. Other reasons stated by consumers: “chewy”; “stringy”; “grizzley inside”; “not a pleasurable eating experience.”
b Percentage c
S: Sensory & Food Quality
preferred well-done steaks when compared to consumers who other reasons for flavor unacceptability were placed in the “other” category. preferred lower degrees of doneness (Reicks and others 2011). Table 8 presents the reasons stated by consumers for rating overall liking as unacceptable. Overall like was found to be unacceptable in 2.33% of the samples in the study. Cooking was cited as Consumer’s reasons for rating palatability traits as the reason the samples were unacceptable more than any other unacceptable Tenderness was rated unacceptable in 2.44% of the tenderloin reason (27.3% of the unacceptable responses). Flavor was cited as samples from the total study. Reasons listed for tenderness unac- the reason or part of the reason for overall unacceptability more ceptability are presented in Table 5. Reasons included sample “too than the other palatability traits of tenderness and juiciness. tough,” “too chewy,” “too stringy,” and “too tender.” All other stated reasons were grouped together in an “other” category. The Conclusions most frequent reason for tenderness unacceptability was the samResults of this study indicate no palatability advantage of USDA ple was “too tough.” Numerous studies have been conducted in Choice tenderloin steaks over USDA Select. Moreover, tenderloin order to establish a tenderness threshold for consumers. Miller and steaks in this study were found to rate very high for all palatability others (1995) established a WBS force value tenderness threshold traits and were found unacceptable in only a low percentage of of 4.3 kg for consumer tenderness acceptability. Moreover, Miller samples. These results indicate a high level of satisfaction of conand others (2001) established a WBS force tenderness threshold of sumers with tenderloin steaks across a range of quality grades and 3.4 kg at which 99% of consumers rated tenderness as acceptable. degrees of doneness. Furthermore, these results indicate foodBeef tenderloins have been shown to have WBS force values of service institutions can provide USDA Select tenderloin steaks 2.6 and 2.96 kg by Shackelford and others (1995) and Belew and without paying a premium for USDA Choice and consumers will others (2003), respectfully. These reported WBS force values for receive a similar eating experience. Finally, these results provide no tenderloins are well below established tenderness thresholds. In palatability-based justification for premium marketing of USDA this study, 34.8% of samples classified as unacceptable for tender- Choice over USDA Select tenderloins. ness were cited as “too tough,” accounting for less than 1% of the samples from the entire study. The remaining 65.2% of samples References classified as unacceptable for tenderness cited reasons unrelated Behrends JM, Goodson KJ, Koohmaraie M, Shackelford SD, Wheeler TL, Morgan WW, Reagan JO, Gwartney BL, Wise JW, Savell JW. 2005. Beef customer satisfaction: USDA quality grade to toughness, giving further evidence to the very high level of and marination effects on consumer evaluations of top round steaks. J Anim Sci 83(3):662–70. tenderness found in tenderloin steaks. Belew JB, Brooks JC, McKenna DR, Savell JW. 2003. Warner-Bratzler shear evaluations of 40 bovine muscles. Meat Sci 64(4):507–12. Juiciness was rated as unacceptable in 2.65% of the tenderloin CH, O’Quinn TG, Garmyn AJ, Legako JF, Hunt MR, Dinh TTN, Rathmann RJ, samples served. Reasons listed by consumers for rating juiciness as Corbin Brooks JC, Miller MF. 2015. Sensory evaluation of tender beef strip loin steaks of varying marbling levels and quality treatments. Meat Sci 100(0):24–31. unacceptable are presented in Table 6. Consumers stated “sample HR, Stanfield MS, Koch EJ. 1976. Beef palatability as affected by cooking rate and final was too dry” as the reason for juiciness unacceptability more than Cross Internal temperature. J Anim Sci 43(1):114–21. any other reason. The remaining unacceptable responses were clas- Emerson MR, Woerner DR, Belk KE, Tatum JD. 2013. Effectiveness of USDA instrument-based marbling measurements for categorizing beef carcasses according to differences in longissimus sified in the “other” category because of no commonality among muscle sensory attributes. J Anim Sci 91(2):1024–34. them. However, no samples were classified as “too juicy,” whereas Gruber SL, Tatum JD, Scanga JA, Chapman PL, Smith GC, Belk KE. 2006. Effects of postmortem aging and USDA quality grade on Warner-Bratzler shear force values of seventeen samples were rated as “too tender.” individual beef muscles. J Anim Sci 84(12):3387–96. Flavor was rated as unacceptable more than any other palatabil- Guelker MR, Haneklaus AN, Brooks JC, Carr CC, Delmore RJ, Griffin DB, Hale DS, Harris KB, Mafi GG, Johnson DD, Lorenzen CL, Maddock RJ, Martin JN, Miller RK, Raines CR, ity trait, being found unacceptable in 4.34% of samples. Reasons VanOverbeke DL, Vedral LL, Wasser BE, Savell JW. 2013. National Beef Tenderness Survey stated by consumers for rating flavor as unacceptable are presented 2010: Warner-Bratzler shear force values and sensory panel ratings for beef steaks from United States retail and food service establishments. J Anim Sci 91(2):1005–14. in Table 7. The majority of consumers who rated flavor as unacHerring HK, Cassens RG, Rriskey EJ. 1965. Further studies on bovine muscle tenderness as ceptable cited “seasoning” as the reason. The seasoning was added influenced by carcass position, sarcomere length, and fiber diameter. J Food Sci 30(6):1049–54. to the steaks to represent a steak that would be served at a food- Hostetler RL, Landmann WA, Link BA, Fitzhugh HA, Jr. 1970. Influence of carcass position during rigor mortis on tenderness of beef muscles: comparison of two treatments. J Anim Sci service establishment. The seasoning blend affected flavor in many 31(1):47–50. unknown ways, with some consumers rating flavor lower and even Hunt MC, Hedrick HB. 1977. Profile of fiber types and related properties of five bovine muscles. J Food Sci 42(2):513–7. as unacceptable because of the seasoning and other consumers Hunt MR, Garmyn AJ, O’Quinn TG, Corbin CH, Legako JF, Rathmann RJ, Brooks JC, Miller MF. 2014. Consumer assessment of beef palatability from four beef muscles from potentially rating flavor higher for the same reason. Additional USDA Choice and Select graded carcasses. Meat Sci 98(1):1–8. reasons stated by multiple consumers for rating flavor as unaccept- Koohmaraie M, Seideman SC, Schollmeyer JE, Dutson TR, Babiker AS. 1988. Factors associated able included “not enough flavor” and “off-flavor present.” All with the tenderness of three bovine muscles. J Food Sci 53(2):407–10. S448 Journal of Food Science r Vol. 80, Nr. 2, 2015
Consumer assessment of beef tenderloin . . . Reicks AL, Brooks JC, Garmyn AJ, Thompson LD, Lyford CL, Miller MF. 2011. Demographics and beef preferences affect consumer motivation for purchasing fresh beef steaks and roasts. Meat Sci 87(4):403–11. Savell JW, Lorenzen CL, Neely TR, Miller RK, Tatum JD, Wise JW, Taylor JF, Buyck MJ, Reagan JO. 1999. Beef customer satisfaction: cooking method and degree of doneness effects on the top sirloin steak. J Anim Sci 77(3):645–52. Shackelford SD, Wheeler TL, Koohmaraie M. 1995. Relationship between shear force and trained sensory panel tenderness ratings of 10 major muscles from Bos indicus and Bos taurus cattle. J Anim Sci 73(11):3333–40. Smith GC, Carpenter ZL, Cross HR, Murphey CE, Abraham HC, Savell JW, Davis GW, Berry BW, Parrish Jr FC. 1985. Relationship of USDA marbling groups to palatability of cooked beef. J Food Qual 7(4):289–308. Smith GC, Savell JW, Cross HR, Carpenter ZL, Murphey CE, Davis GW, Abraham HC, Parrish Jr FC, Berry BW. 1987. Relationship of USDA quality grades to palatability of cooked beef. J Food Qual 10(4):269–86. Tatum JD, Smith GC, Berry BW, Murphey CE, Williams FL, Carpenter ZL. 1980. Carcass characteristics, time on feed and cooked beef palatability attributes. J Anim Sci 50(5):833– 40. Torrescano G, S´anchez-Escalante A, Gim´enez B, Roncal´es P, Beltr´an JA. 2003. Shear values of raw samples of 14 bovine muscles and their relation to muscle collagen characteristics. Meat Sci 64(1):85–91. USDA. 1997. United States standards for grades of carcass beef. Washington, D.C.: United States Dept. of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. USDA. 2014. Natl. Carlot Meat Report. Des Moines, Iowa: Agricultural Marketing Service, Livestock and Seed Program, Livestock and Grain Market News Service. Available from: http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/lsddb.pdf. Accessed 2014 October 10.
S: Sensory & Food Quality
Kukowski AC, Maddock RJ, Wulf DM. 2004. Evaluating consumer acceptability of various muscles from the beef chuck and rib. J Anim Sci 82(2):521–5. Lorenzen CL, Miller RK, Taylor JF, Neely TR, Tatum JD, Wise JW, Buyck MJ, Reagan JO, Savell JW. 2003. Beef customer satisfaction: Trained sensory panel ratings and Warner-Bratzler shear force values. J Anim Sci 81(1):143–9. Luchak GL, Miller RK, Belk KE, Hale DS, Michaelsen SA, Johnson DD, West RL, Leak FW, Cross HR, Savell JW. 1998. Determination of sensory, chemical and cooking characteristics of retail beef cuts differing in intramuscular and external fat. Meat Sci 50(1):55–72. Meilgaard M, Civille GV, Carr BT. 2007. Sensory evaluation techniques. 4th ed. Boston, Fla.: CRC Press. Miller MF, Carr MA, Ramsey CB, Crockett KL, Hoover LC. 2001. Consumer thresholds for establishing the value of beef tenderness. J Anim Sci 79(12):3062–8. Miller MF, Hoover LC, Cook KD, Guerra AL, Huffman KL, Tinney KS, Ramsey CB, Brittin HC, Huffman LM. 1995. Consumer acceptability of beef steak tenderness in the home and restaurant. J Food Sci 60(5):963–5. NCBA. 2008. Beef steak color guide. Centennial, CO: Natl. Cattelmen’s Beef Association. Neely TR, Lorenzen CL, Miller RK, Tatum JD, Wise JW, Taylor JF, Buyck MJ, Reagan JO, Savell JW. 1998. Beef customer satisfaction: role of cut, USDA quality grade, and city on in-home consumer ratings. J Anim Sci 76(4):1027–33. Neely TR, Lorenzen CL, Miller RK, Tatum JD, Wise JW, Taylor JF, Buyck MJ, Reagan JO, Savell JW. 1999. Beef customer satisfaction: cooking method and degree of doneness effects on the top round steak. J Anim Sci 77(3):653–60. O’Quinn TG, Brooks JC, Polkinghorne RJ, Garmyn AJ, Johnson BJ, Starkey JD, Rathmann RJ, Miller MF. 2012. Consumer assessment of beef strip loin steaks of varying fat levels. J Anim Sci 90(2):626–34. Parrish FC, Jr., Olson DG, Miner BE, Rust RE. 1973. Effect of degree of marbling and internal temperature of doneness on beef rib steaks. J Anim Sci 37(2):430–4. Prost E, Pelczynska E, Kotula AW. 1975. Quality characteristics of bovine meat. II. Beef tenderness in relation to individual muscles, age and sex of animals and carcass quality grade. J Anim Sci 41(2):541–7.
Vol. 80, Nr. 2, 2015 r Journal of Food Science S449
A consumer study was conducted to determine palatability ratings of beef tenderloin steaks from USDA Choice, USDA Select, and USDA Select with marbling scores from Slight 50 to 100 (USDA High Select) cooked to various degrees of doneness. Steaks were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 degree of doneness categories: very-rare, mediumrare, or well-done. Consumers (N = 315) were screened for preference of degree of doneness and fed 4 samples of their preferred doneness (a warm-up and one from each USDA quality grade treatment in a random order). Consumers evaluated steaks on an 8-point verbally anchored hedonic scale for tenderness, juiciness, flavor, and overall like as well as rated steaks as acceptable or unacceptable for all palatability traits. Quality grade had no effect (P > 0.05) on consumer ratings for tenderness, juiciness, flavor, and overall like scores, with all traits averaging above a 7 (“like very much”) on the 8-point scale. In addition, no differences (P > 0.05) were found in the percentage of samples rated as acceptable for all palatability traits, with more than 94% of samples rated acceptable for each trait in all quality grades evaluated. Steaks cooked to well-done had lower (P < 0.05) juiciness scores than steaks cooked to very-rare or medium-rare and were rated lower for tenderness (P < 0.05) than steaks cooked to a very-rare degree of doneness. Results indicate consumers were not able to detect differences in tenderness, juiciness, flavor, or overall like among beef tenderloin steaks from USDA Choice and Select quality grades.
Abstract:
Keywords: beef, consumer, marbling, palatability, tenderloin
The high palatability ratings and percentage of samples rated as acceptable for each palatability trait in this study indicate both USDA Choice and Select tenderloin steaks produce an eating experience that meets consumer beef eating expectations and provides no evidence for quality grade based marketing between these 2 groups.
Practical Application:
S: Sensory & Food Quality
Introduction The effect of marbling and USDA quality grade on the palatability of beef has been the major focus of numerous studies. The majority of these studies have concluded increasing marbling level has a positive effect on beef palatability; however, the effect differs among muscles. The effect of marbling and USDA quality grade on palatability has been reported on top loin steaks (O’Quinn and others 2012; Emerson and others 2013; Corbin and others 2015), top sirloin steaks (Neely and others 1998; Savell and others 1999; Hunt and others 2014), rib steaks (Parrish and others 1973; Tatum and others 1980; Guelker and others 2013), top round steaks (Neely and others 1999; Lorenzen and others 2003; Behrends and others 2005), eye of round steaks (Smith and others 1987; Luchak and others 1998), bottom round steaks (Smith and others 1987), and the muscles of the chuck (Kukowski and others 2004; Hunt and others 2014). However, published reports detailing the effect of USDA quality grade on the palatability of beef tenderloin steaks are lacking. Beef tenderloins have the highest value of all subprimals from the beef carcass (USDA 2014). In addition, the premium for USDA Choice tenderloins over USDA Select is greater than all other no MS 20141787 Submitted 10/27/2014, Accepted 12/16/2014. Authors O’Quinn is with 247 Weber Hall, Dept. of Animal Sciences and Industry, Kansas State Univ., Manhattan, KS 66506, U.S.A. Authors Brooks and Miller are with Box 42162, Dept. of Animal and Food Sciences, Texas Tech Univ., Lubbock, TX 79409, U.S.A. Direct inquiries to author: O’Quinn ([email protected]).
S444
Journal of Food Science r Vol. 80, Nr. 2, 2015
subprimals (USDA 2014). With record high beef prices and the economic downturn in the United States over the past half-decade, the need for foodservice institutions to reduce expenses is greater than ever. If increased quality grade has no effect on the palatability of beef tenderloins, then paying premium dollars for USDA Choice rather than USDA Select would not be advantageous for foodservice establishments. Therefore, the objective of this study was to measure the effects of USDA quality grade on the palatability traits of beef tenderloin steaks when cooked to various degrees of doneness as determined by consumers.
Materials and Methods Product Beef tenderloin steaks (psoas major; N = 315; 105 per treatment) weighing approximately 200 g, aged approximately 21 d, representing 3 USDA quality grades (USDA Choice, USDA Select, and USDA Select with marbling scores from Slight 50 to 100 [USDA High Select]; USDA 1997] were vacuum packaged and shipped in the absence of light at 2 to 4 °C to the Texas Tech Univ. Gordon W. Davis Meat Science Laboratory. High Select was chosen as a treatment to determine if a sourced USDA Select product representing only the top half of the quality grade would be produce a more consistent eating experience than commodity Select. Steaks were stored in the absence of light at 2 to 4 °C for 24 to 48 h before sensory panel evaluation. R C 2015 Institute of Food Technologists
doi: 10.1111/1750-3841.12775 Further reproduction without permission is prohibited
Consumer assessment of beef tenderloin . . .
Degree of doneness
Percentage cook loss
SEMc
10.4a 15.2b 23.7c
0.19 0.20 0.24
unacceptable. If a palatability trait was rated as unacceptable, consumers were asked to state a reason.
Statistical analysis A completely randomized design with a split-plot arrangement of factors with degree of doneness as the main-plot factor and USDA quality grade as the subplot factor was used as the model. Note: Least squares means in the same column with different letters (a,b,c) differ (P < The fixed effects of USDA quality grade, degree of doneness, and 0.01). a Percentage of cook loss calculated by ([raw weight − cooked weight]/raw the USDA quality grade × degree of doneness interaction were weight) × 100. b Degree of doneness determined visually by comparison to the Beef Steak Color Guide analyzed using the MIXED procedure of SAS (Version 9.3; SAS (NCBA 2008). Inst. Inc., Cary, N.C., U.S.A.). Acceptability data were analyzed c SE of the least squares mean. using the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS with a model that included a binomial error distribution. When the F-test on the fixed effect was significant, the PDIFF option was used to separate treatment Preparation means with α = 0.05. The FREQUENCY procedure of SAS was Tenderloin steaks from each quality grade were randomly as- used to summarize demographic data. signed to one of 3 degree of doneness categories: very-rare, medium-rare, or well-done. Steak weights were recorded before Results and Discussion and after cooking and the percentage of cooking loss was calculated (Table 1). Steaks were prepared on a flat-top grill (Model IR- USDA quality grade 6-GT36-CC, Imperial, Corona, Calif., U.S.A.) at approximately Analysis revealed no interaction (P > 0.05) between USDA 204 °C by culinary personnel who were trained to cook steaks to quality grade and degree of doneness for all palatability traits and visual degree of doneness end-points using restaurant experience, acceptability percentages. The effects of USDA quality grade on touch, and cook time. Each steak was seasoned with a proprietary consumer palatability scores are presented in Table 3. Analysis spice blend before cooking to simulate a steak eating experience revealed USDA quality grade had no effect (P > 0.05) on tenthat would typically be found in a restaurant setting. Samples were derness, juiciness, flavor, or overall like ratings. Moreover, all traits turned once, half-way through cooking. After cooking, steaks had an average rating of more than 7 on the 8-point scale. A rating were divided into 3, equally sized portions (approximately 56 g) of 7 corresponded with “like very much,” indicating consumers, and served immediately to consumers. A score of visual degree of on average, had a strong preference for the tenderness, juiciness, doneness was recorded for each steak using the Beef Steak Color flavor, and overall like of tenderloin steaks, regardless of quality Guide (NCBA 2008), which had been assigned a numerical score grade. These high ratings for juiciness and flavor may be the result (1 = very-rare, 2 = rare, 3 = medium-rare, 4 = medium, 5 = of the “halo effect” (Meilgaard and others 2007). Tenderloin steaks well-done, 6 = very well-done). have been reported as having Warner–Bratzler shear (WBS) force values of 2.6 to 3.0 kg (Shackelford and others 1995; Belew and others 2003), which corresponds to a tenderness rating of “very Sensory panel tender” (Belew and others 2003). It is possible that the high ratings The Texas Tech Univ. Institutional Review Board approved for tenderness in this study positively influenced and inflated the procedures for use of human subjects for sensory panel evalua- other palatability ratings for juiciness and flavor. tions. A total of 315 consumers (n = 105 consumers/degree of Effects of USDA quality grade on the percentage of samples doneness)—recruited from Lubbock and the surrounding com- rated as acceptable for each palatability trait are presented in munities and paid to participate in the study—were screened for Table 4. USDA quality grade had no effect (P > 0.05) on the preference of degree of doneness. Consumers were only fed steaks percentage of samples rated as acceptable by consumers for tenof their preferred degree of doneness and were only allowed to derness, juiciness, flavor, and overall like. Similar to the palatability participate once. Sensory panels were conducted in the Texas Tech trait ratings, all percentages were very high. All traits were found Univ. Animal and Food Science Building under florescent lights. to have more than 94% of samples rated as acceptable, with quality Panelists were randomly assigned to individual sensory booths. grade having no significant influence. Two panels of 36 consumers and one panel of 33 consumers Results from this study indicate no palatability advantage in were conducted on 3 consecutive nights, one for each degree of USDA Choice beef tenderloin steaks over USDA Select tenderdoneness. Panelists were given a cup of water, apple juice, and loin steaks. Previous studies have found little tenderness variation unsalted crackers for cleansing the palate between samples, an ex- among tenderloins of various quality grades. Gruber and others pectorant cup, and a plastic knife and fork. Panelists were given (2006) found no difference between USDA Average and High verbal instructions before the start of panels and each filled out a Choice tenderloin steaks and USDA Select tenderloin steaks for demographic questionnaire (Table 2). Each panelist was served a WBS force values. Additionally, Shackelford and others (1995) warm-up sample and one sample from each USDA quality grade found beef tenderloins to be the most tender and least variable treatment (USDA Choice, USDA Select, and USDA High Se- for tenderness among all muscles studied. Moreover, Shackelford lect) in a random order. Each sample was identified by a unique and others (1995) found no tenderness differences among tender3-digit number. Panelists characterized steaks on an 8-point ver- loins from different quality grades and thus proposed tenderloins bally anchored hedonic scale for tenderness, juiciness, flavor, and should be marketed without regard to USDA quality grade. Reoverall like (8 = like extremely, 7 = like very much, 6 = like sults from this are in agreement with the findings of Shackelford moderately, 5 = like slightly, 4 = dislike slightly, 3 = dislike mod- and others (1995) and indicate no palatability-based justification erately, 2 = dislike very much, 1 = dislike extremely), as well as for premium marketing of USDA Choice tenderloins over USDA rated tenderness, juiciness, flavor, and overall like as acceptable or Select tenderloins (USDA 2014). Very-rare Medium-rare Well-done
Vol. 80, Nr. 2, 2015 r Journal of Food Science S445
S: Sensory & Food Quality
Table 1–Percentage of cook lossa by degree of donenessb for beef tenderloin steaks.
Consumer assessment of beef tenderloin . . . Table 2–Demographic characteristics of consumers (n = 315) who participated in beef tenderloin steak sensory panels. Characteristic Gender Household size
Household income Age (y)
Ethnicity
Average annual household income
Highest level of education completed
Weekly beef consumption
Response
Percentage of consumers
Male Female 1 Person 2 People 3 People 4 People 5 People 6 People > 6 People Single income Dual income Under 18 18–34 35–50 Over 50 African-American Caucasian Hispanic Other Under $20,000 $20,000 to 29,999 $30,000 to 49,999 $50,000 to 69,999 $70,000 to 100,000 Greater than $100,000 No high school High school Some college College Postgraduate None 1 to 3 times 4 to 6 times 7 or more times
45.8 54.2 13.4 25.8 17.0 28.1 12.1 2.6 1.0 31.1 68.9 1.6 28.0 40.8 29.6 0.6 88.4 10.3 0.7 5.3 6.0 16.3 18.0 35.7 18.7 2.6 16.1 37.4 31.3 12.6 0.3 41.9 48.2 9.6
Table 3–Effects of USDA quality grade and degree of donenessa on consumer sensory scoresb of beef tenderloin steaks.
S: Sensory & Food Quality
USDA quality grade Palatability trait Tenderness Juiciness Flavor Overall liking
Choice 7.28 7.32 7.04 7.19
High
selectc
7.21 7.21 7.11 7.13
Degree of doneness
Select
SEMd
P – value
Very-rare
Medium-rare
Well-done
SEMd
P-value
7.27 7.18 7.19 7.19
0.06 0.05 0.06 0.06
0.604 0.166 0.217 0.713
7.35a 7.34a 7.12 7.17
7.23ab 7.29a 7.11 7.22
7.17b 7.07b 7.10 7.12
0.05 0.05 0.06 0.05
0.045 0.001 0.957 0.400
Note: Least squares means in the same row and section (USDA quality grade or degree of doneness) with different letters (a and b) differ (P < 0.05). a Degree of doneness determined visually by comparison to the Beef Steak Color Guide (NCBA, 2008). b Sensory scores: 6 = like moderately; 7 = like very much; 8 = like extremely. c High Select = USDA Select with marbling score of Slight 50 to 100. d SE of the least squares treatment means.
USDA quality grade has been shown to have a large effect on the palatability of the longissimus dorsi (Smith and others 1987; O’Quinn and others 2012; Emerson and others 2013), a muscle that rates moderate in terms of connective tissue (Koohmaraie and others 1988; Torrescano and others 2003) and sarcomere length (Herring and others 1965; Hunt and Hedrick 1977). However, the effect of quality grade on the palatability of muscles that contain a greater amount of connective tissue and are consequently tougher is less pronounced. Quality grade has been shown to have little to no effect on the palatability traits of top sirloin steaks (Neely and others 1998; Savell and others 1999; Lorenzen and others 2003) as well as little effect on top round steaks (Neely and others 1999), and has been shown to have no effect on WBS force values of steaks from the eye of round, top round, and bottom round (Smith and others 1985). Results from this study indicate that the palatability of tenderloin steaks is also not affected by USDA
S446 Journal of Food Science r Vol. 80, Nr. 2, 2015
quality grade. This lack of difference in palatability is believed to be the result of low connective tissue levels and increased sarcomere length. The tenderloin has been shown to have the longest sarcomeres of the muscles in the beef carcass (Hostetler and others 1970; Torrescano and others 2003) and possess the least amount of total collagen (Prost and others 1975; Torrescano and others 2003). It is believed in beef tenderloin steaks, as in many tough muscles, that palatability ratings are more directly driven by other factors affecting eating quality and palatability differences because of changes in intramuscular fat level are overshadowed by the inherent physiological properties of the muscle. The results of this study, combined with the previous findings of authors who evaluated inherently tough muscles, indicate USDA quality grade has the largest effect on muscles that are intermediate in tenderness and has only minimal effects on the palatability of muscles that are inherently more extreme in tenderness.
Consumer assessment of beef tenderloin . . . Table 4–Percentage of samples by USDA quality grade and degree of donenessa rated acceptable for tenderness, juiciness, flavor, and overall like by consumers for beef tenderloin steaks. USDA quality grade Palatability trait Tenderness Juiciness Flavor Overall liking
Choice 98.46 99.07 94.75 97.53
High
Selectb
96.89 97.51 95.37 97.84
Degree of doneness
Select
SEMc
P-value
Very-rare
Medium-rare
Well-done
SEMc
P – value
97.53 95.99 96.91 97.84
1.09 0.82 1.50 1.08
0.600 0.051 0.587 0.974
97.20 99.07a 94.44 97.53
96.91 97.82ab 95.37 99.07
98.78 95.68b 97.22 96.60
1.09 0.82 1.50 1.08
0.452 0.028 0.429 0.291
a
Degree of doneness determined visually by comparison to the Beef Steak Color Guide (NCBA, 2008). Select = USDA Select with marbling score of Slight 50 to 100. SE of the least squares treatment means. Least squares means in the same row and section (USDA quality grade or degree of doneness) with different letters (a and b) differ (P < 0.05).
b High c
Table 5–Reasons stated by consumers for rating tenderness as unacceptable for beef tenderloin steaks. Reason Too tough Otherc Chewy Stringy Too tender Total a
Percentage of unacceptable responsea
Percentage of total studyb
34.8 30.4 13.0 13.0 8.7 –
0.85 0.74 0.32 0.32 0.21 2.44
Percentage of samples marked unacceptable for tenderness with listed reason. of samples from total study marked unacceptable for tenderness with listed reason. Other reasons stated by consumers: “hard to cut”; “hard to chew”; “grainy”; “mushy”; “seared edges too much”; “over cooked”; “spongy.”
b Percentage c
Table 6–Reasons stated by consumers for rating juiciness as unacceptable for beef tenderloin steaks. Reason
Percentage of unacceptable responsea
Percentage of total studyb
Too dry Otherc Total
80.0 20.0 –
2.12 0.53 2.65
a
Percentage of samples marked unacceptable for juiciness with listed reason. of samples from total study marked unacceptable for juiciness with listed reason. Other reasons stated by consumers: “cooked too much”; “missing plate juice”; “very spicy”; “too much in your mouth after every bite”; “no, no, no.”
Table 7–Reasons stated by consumers for rating flavor as unacceptable for beef tenderloin steaks. Reason Seasoning Not enough flavor Otherc Off flavor Total a
Percentage of unacceptable responsea
Percentage of total studyb
41.5 39.0 14.6 4.9 –
1.80 1.69 0.64 0.21 4.34
Percentage of samples marked unacceptable for flavor with listed reason. of samples from total study marked unacceptable for flavor with listed reason. Other reasons stated by consumers: “cooked too long”; “not as good as the look”; “too rare”; “not enough flaming”; “tasted like blood”; “not as good as the others.”
b Percentage c
Degree of doneness Effects of degree of doneness on consumer palatability scores are presented in Table 3. Degree of doneness had no effect (P > 0.05) on consumer rating scores for overall liking and flavor. However, consumers who preferred well-done rated steaks lower for tenderness (P < 0.05) than consumers who preferred steaks cooked to very-rare. In addition, well-done steaks were rated lower for juiciness (P < 0.05) than steaks cooked to very-rare and medium-rare degrees of doneness. Degree of doneness effects on consumer acceptability of palatability traits are presented in Table 4. Degree of doneness had no effect (P > 0.05) on the percentage of samples rated as acceptable for tenderness and flavor. Steaks cooked to well-done had a lower percentage (P < 0.05) of samples rated acceptable for juiciness than steaks cooked to very-rare. However, well-done steaks had a similar (P > 0.05) percentage of samples rated acceptable for overall like as very-rare and medium-rare prepared samples.
Numerous studies have shown a decrease in palatability associated with elevated degrees of doneness (Parrish and others 1973; Cross and others 1976; Luchak and others 1998). In this study, tenderness and juiciness ratings decreased as degree of doneness increased. However, no differences in the percentage of samples rated acceptable for overall like were observed among the 3 degrees of doneness. Because consumers were screened for degree of doneness preference and only fed steaks of their preferred doneness, it can be deduced that consumers who prefer well-done may be more accepting of a steak that rates lower for tenderness and juiciness than consumers who prefer lower degrees of doneness. In addition, these results indicate flavor may be more important to consumers who prefer well-done and may have greater influence on overall beef acceptability for these consumers than tenderness and juiciness. These findings are consistent with a previous study evaluating beef purchasing motivators, in which juiciness was rated less important and flavor more important to consumers who
Vol. 80, Nr. 2, 2015 r Journal of Food Science S447
S: Sensory & Food Quality
b Percentage c
Consumer assessment of beef tenderloin . . . Table 8–Reasons stated by consumers for rating overall like as unacceptable for beef tenderloin steaks. Reason
Percentage of unacceptable responsea
Percentage of total studyb
27.3 18.2 18.2 13.6 13.6 4.5 4.5 –
0.63 0.42 0.42 0.32 0.32 0.11 0.11 2.33
Cooking Flavor Otherc Tenderness Flavor and tenderness Juiciness Juiciness and tenderness Total a
Percentage of samples marked unacceptable for overall like with listed reason. of samples from total study marked unacceptable for overall like with listed reason. Other reasons stated by consumers: “chewy”; “stringy”; “grizzley inside”; “not a pleasurable eating experience.”
b Percentage c
S: Sensory & Food Quality
preferred well-done steaks when compared to consumers who other reasons for flavor unacceptability were placed in the “other” category. preferred lower degrees of doneness (Reicks and others 2011). Table 8 presents the reasons stated by consumers for rating overall liking as unacceptable. Overall like was found to be unacceptable in 2.33% of the samples in the study. Cooking was cited as Consumer’s reasons for rating palatability traits as the reason the samples were unacceptable more than any other unacceptable Tenderness was rated unacceptable in 2.44% of the tenderloin reason (27.3% of the unacceptable responses). Flavor was cited as samples from the total study. Reasons listed for tenderness unac- the reason or part of the reason for overall unacceptability more ceptability are presented in Table 5. Reasons included sample “too than the other palatability traits of tenderness and juiciness. tough,” “too chewy,” “too stringy,” and “too tender.” All other stated reasons were grouped together in an “other” category. The Conclusions most frequent reason for tenderness unacceptability was the samResults of this study indicate no palatability advantage of USDA ple was “too tough.” Numerous studies have been conducted in Choice tenderloin steaks over USDA Select. Moreover, tenderloin order to establish a tenderness threshold for consumers. Miller and steaks in this study were found to rate very high for all palatability others (1995) established a WBS force value tenderness threshold traits and were found unacceptable in only a low percentage of of 4.3 kg for consumer tenderness acceptability. Moreover, Miller samples. These results indicate a high level of satisfaction of conand others (2001) established a WBS force tenderness threshold of sumers with tenderloin steaks across a range of quality grades and 3.4 kg at which 99% of consumers rated tenderness as acceptable. degrees of doneness. Furthermore, these results indicate foodBeef tenderloins have been shown to have WBS force values of service institutions can provide USDA Select tenderloin steaks 2.6 and 2.96 kg by Shackelford and others (1995) and Belew and without paying a premium for USDA Choice and consumers will others (2003), respectfully. These reported WBS force values for receive a similar eating experience. Finally, these results provide no tenderloins are well below established tenderness thresholds. In palatability-based justification for premium marketing of USDA this study, 34.8% of samples classified as unacceptable for tender- Choice over USDA Select tenderloins. ness were cited as “too tough,” accounting for less than 1% of the samples from the entire study. The remaining 65.2% of samples References classified as unacceptable for tenderness cited reasons unrelated Behrends JM, Goodson KJ, Koohmaraie M, Shackelford SD, Wheeler TL, Morgan WW, Reagan JO, Gwartney BL, Wise JW, Savell JW. 2005. Beef customer satisfaction: USDA quality grade to toughness, giving further evidence to the very high level of and marination effects on consumer evaluations of top round steaks. J Anim Sci 83(3):662–70. tenderness found in tenderloin steaks. Belew JB, Brooks JC, McKenna DR, Savell JW. 2003. Warner-Bratzler shear evaluations of 40 bovine muscles. Meat Sci 64(4):507–12. Juiciness was rated as unacceptable in 2.65% of the tenderloin CH, O’Quinn TG, Garmyn AJ, Legako JF, Hunt MR, Dinh TTN, Rathmann RJ, samples served. Reasons listed by consumers for rating juiciness as Corbin Brooks JC, Miller MF. 2015. Sensory evaluation of tender beef strip loin steaks of varying marbling levels and quality treatments. Meat Sci 100(0):24–31. unacceptable are presented in Table 6. Consumers stated “sample HR, Stanfield MS, Koch EJ. 1976. Beef palatability as affected by cooking rate and final was too dry” as the reason for juiciness unacceptability more than Cross Internal temperature. J Anim Sci 43(1):114–21. any other reason. The remaining unacceptable responses were clas- Emerson MR, Woerner DR, Belk KE, Tatum JD. 2013. Effectiveness of USDA instrument-based marbling measurements for categorizing beef carcasses according to differences in longissimus sified in the “other” category because of no commonality among muscle sensory attributes. J Anim Sci 91(2):1024–34. them. However, no samples were classified as “too juicy,” whereas Gruber SL, Tatum JD, Scanga JA, Chapman PL, Smith GC, Belk KE. 2006. Effects of postmortem aging and USDA quality grade on Warner-Bratzler shear force values of seventeen samples were rated as “too tender.” individual beef muscles. J Anim Sci 84(12):3387–96. Flavor was rated as unacceptable more than any other palatabil- Guelker MR, Haneklaus AN, Brooks JC, Carr CC, Delmore RJ, Griffin DB, Hale DS, Harris KB, Mafi GG, Johnson DD, Lorenzen CL, Maddock RJ, Martin JN, Miller RK, Raines CR, ity trait, being found unacceptable in 4.34% of samples. Reasons VanOverbeke DL, Vedral LL, Wasser BE, Savell JW. 2013. National Beef Tenderness Survey stated by consumers for rating flavor as unacceptable are presented 2010: Warner-Bratzler shear force values and sensory panel ratings for beef steaks from United States retail and food service establishments. J Anim Sci 91(2):1005–14. in Table 7. The majority of consumers who rated flavor as unacHerring HK, Cassens RG, Rriskey EJ. 1965. Further studies on bovine muscle tenderness as ceptable cited “seasoning” as the reason. The seasoning was added influenced by carcass position, sarcomere length, and fiber diameter. J Food Sci 30(6):1049–54. to the steaks to represent a steak that would be served at a food- Hostetler RL, Landmann WA, Link BA, Fitzhugh HA, Jr. 1970. Influence of carcass position during rigor mortis on tenderness of beef muscles: comparison of two treatments. J Anim Sci service establishment. The seasoning blend affected flavor in many 31(1):47–50. unknown ways, with some consumers rating flavor lower and even Hunt MC, Hedrick HB. 1977. Profile of fiber types and related properties of five bovine muscles. J Food Sci 42(2):513–7. as unacceptable because of the seasoning and other consumers Hunt MR, Garmyn AJ, O’Quinn TG, Corbin CH, Legako JF, Rathmann RJ, Brooks JC, Miller MF. 2014. Consumer assessment of beef palatability from four beef muscles from potentially rating flavor higher for the same reason. Additional USDA Choice and Select graded carcasses. Meat Sci 98(1):1–8. reasons stated by multiple consumers for rating flavor as unaccept- Koohmaraie M, Seideman SC, Schollmeyer JE, Dutson TR, Babiker AS. 1988. Factors associated able included “not enough flavor” and “off-flavor present.” All with the tenderness of three bovine muscles. J Food Sci 53(2):407–10. S448 Journal of Food Science r Vol. 80, Nr. 2, 2015
Consumer assessment of beef tenderloin . . . Reicks AL, Brooks JC, Garmyn AJ, Thompson LD, Lyford CL, Miller MF. 2011. Demographics and beef preferences affect consumer motivation for purchasing fresh beef steaks and roasts. Meat Sci 87(4):403–11. Savell JW, Lorenzen CL, Neely TR, Miller RK, Tatum JD, Wise JW, Taylor JF, Buyck MJ, Reagan JO. 1999. Beef customer satisfaction: cooking method and degree of doneness effects on the top sirloin steak. J Anim Sci 77(3):645–52. Shackelford SD, Wheeler TL, Koohmaraie M. 1995. Relationship between shear force and trained sensory panel tenderness ratings of 10 major muscles from Bos indicus and Bos taurus cattle. J Anim Sci 73(11):3333–40. Smith GC, Carpenter ZL, Cross HR, Murphey CE, Abraham HC, Savell JW, Davis GW, Berry BW, Parrish Jr FC. 1985. Relationship of USDA marbling groups to palatability of cooked beef. J Food Qual 7(4):289–308. Smith GC, Savell JW, Cross HR, Carpenter ZL, Murphey CE, Davis GW, Abraham HC, Parrish Jr FC, Berry BW. 1987. Relationship of USDA quality grades to palatability of cooked beef. J Food Qual 10(4):269–86. Tatum JD, Smith GC, Berry BW, Murphey CE, Williams FL, Carpenter ZL. 1980. Carcass characteristics, time on feed and cooked beef palatability attributes. J Anim Sci 50(5):833– 40. Torrescano G, S´anchez-Escalante A, Gim´enez B, Roncal´es P, Beltr´an JA. 2003. Shear values of raw samples of 14 bovine muscles and their relation to muscle collagen characteristics. Meat Sci 64(1):85–91. USDA. 1997. United States standards for grades of carcass beef. Washington, D.C.: United States Dept. of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service. USDA. 2014. Natl. Carlot Meat Report. Des Moines, Iowa: Agricultural Marketing Service, Livestock and Seed Program, Livestock and Grain Market News Service. Available from: http://www.ams.usda.gov/mnreports/lsddb.pdf. Accessed 2014 October 10.
S: Sensory & Food Quality
Kukowski AC, Maddock RJ, Wulf DM. 2004. Evaluating consumer acceptability of various muscles from the beef chuck and rib. J Anim Sci 82(2):521–5. Lorenzen CL, Miller RK, Taylor JF, Neely TR, Tatum JD, Wise JW, Buyck MJ, Reagan JO, Savell JW. 2003. Beef customer satisfaction: Trained sensory panel ratings and Warner-Bratzler shear force values. J Anim Sci 81(1):143–9. Luchak GL, Miller RK, Belk KE, Hale DS, Michaelsen SA, Johnson DD, West RL, Leak FW, Cross HR, Savell JW. 1998. Determination of sensory, chemical and cooking characteristics of retail beef cuts differing in intramuscular and external fat. Meat Sci 50(1):55–72. Meilgaard M, Civille GV, Carr BT. 2007. Sensory evaluation techniques. 4th ed. Boston, Fla.: CRC Press. Miller MF, Carr MA, Ramsey CB, Crockett KL, Hoover LC. 2001. Consumer thresholds for establishing the value of beef tenderness. J Anim Sci 79(12):3062–8. Miller MF, Hoover LC, Cook KD, Guerra AL, Huffman KL, Tinney KS, Ramsey CB, Brittin HC, Huffman LM. 1995. Consumer acceptability of beef steak tenderness in the home and restaurant. J Food Sci 60(5):963–5. NCBA. 2008. Beef steak color guide. Centennial, CO: Natl. Cattelmen’s Beef Association. Neely TR, Lorenzen CL, Miller RK, Tatum JD, Wise JW, Taylor JF, Buyck MJ, Reagan JO, Savell JW. 1998. Beef customer satisfaction: role of cut, USDA quality grade, and city on in-home consumer ratings. J Anim Sci 76(4):1027–33. Neely TR, Lorenzen CL, Miller RK, Tatum JD, Wise JW, Taylor JF, Buyck MJ, Reagan JO, Savell JW. 1999. Beef customer satisfaction: cooking method and degree of doneness effects on the top round steak. J Anim Sci 77(3):653–60. O’Quinn TG, Brooks JC, Polkinghorne RJ, Garmyn AJ, Johnson BJ, Starkey JD, Rathmann RJ, Miller MF. 2012. Consumer assessment of beef strip loin steaks of varying fat levels. J Anim Sci 90(2):626–34. Parrish FC, Jr., Olson DG, Miner BE, Rust RE. 1973. Effect of degree of marbling and internal temperature of doneness on beef rib steaks. J Anim Sci 37(2):430–4. Prost E, Pelczynska E, Kotula AW. 1975. Quality characteristics of bovine meat. II. Beef tenderness in relation to individual muscles, age and sex of animals and carcass quality grade. J Anim Sci 41(2):541–7.
Vol. 80, Nr. 2, 2015 r Journal of Food Science S449
