Relationship of texture profile analysis and Warner-Bratzler shear force with sensory characteristics of beef rib steaks.

Cyclical texture profile analysis (TPA) parameters measured using a star-shaped probe with two cycles of 80% penetration and Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBS) were compared as predictors of objective tenderness and subjective sensory characteristics of rib steaks from 52 beef loins. The TPA parameters of hardness, cohesiveness and chewiness were negatively correlated (P<0.05) with trained panel sensory characteristics of initial tenderness (r=-0.64, -0.41, -0.62, respectively), amount of connective tissue (r=-0.57, -0.27, -0.55, respectively), overall tenderness (r=-0.68, -0.39, -0.64, respectively) and overall palatability (r=-0.56, -0.37, -0.53, respectively). These sensory characteristics were also negatively correlated (P<0.05) with WBS (r=-0.61, -0.49, -0.60, -0.56, respectively). Stepwise regression analysis generated prediction equations that included the TPA parameters of hardness and adhesiveness, which accounted for 47, 36, 51 and 38% of the variation in initial tenderness, amount of connective tissue, overall tenderness and overall palatability, respectively. Prediction equations using WBS accounted for 37, 24, 36 and 31% of the variation in initial tenderness, amount of connective tissue, overall tenderness and overall palatability, respectively. Hence, TPA explained more of the variation in subjective sensory tenderness of the rib steaks than WBS.

[1]  S. Shackelford,et al.  Tenderness classification of beef: I. Evaluation of beef longissimus shear force at 1 or 2 days postmortem as a predictor of aged beef tenderness. , 1997, Journal of animal science.

[2]  S. Shackelford,et al.  Evaluation of slice shear force as an objective method of assessing beef longissimus tenderness. , 1999, Journal of animal science.

[3]  S. Shackelford,et al.  Relationship between shear force and trained sensory panel tenderness ratings of 10 major muscles from Bos indicus and Bos taurus cattle. , 1995, Journal of animal science.

[4]  Marjorie P. Penfield,et al.  EVALUATING FOOD BY OBJECTIVE METHODS , 1990 .

[5]  Malcolm C. Bourne,et al.  Texture profile analysis , 1978 .

[6]  A. M. Pearson.  Objective and subjective measurements for meat tenderness. , 1963 .

[7]  H. Schiefer,et al.  Guide to the Care and Use of Experimental Animals, Volume 2 , 1985 .

[8]  D. N. Rhodes,et al.  MEAT TEXTURE: II. The Relationship Between Subjective Assessments and a Compressive Test on Roast Beef , 1972 .

[9]  C. O. Chichester,et al.  Advances in food research , 1948 .

[10]  L. E. Jeremiah.  A REVIEW OF FACTORS INFLUENCING CONSUMPTION, SELECTION AND ACCEPTABILITY OF MEAT PURCHASES , 1982 .

[11]  A. Szczesniak,et al.  Methods of meat texture measurement viewed from the background of factors affecting tenderness. , 1965, Advances in food research.

[12]  D. Johnson,et al.  Chemical, Physical, and Sensory Characterization of Ground Beef Containing 5 to 30 Percent Fat , 1992 .

[13]  P. V. Harris,et al.  A COMPARISON OF SOME OBJECTIVE METHODS USED TO ASSESS MEAT TENDERNESS , 1972 .

[14]  E. Olfert,et al.  Guide to the care and use of experimental animals , 1993 .

[15]  L. E. Jeremiah,et al.  The effects of grade, gender, and postmortem treatment on beef. II. Cooking properties and palatability attributes. , 1997 .

[16]  M. Miller,et al.  Consumer Acceptability of Beef Steak Tenderness in the Home and Restaurant , 1995 .

[17]  M. Price,et al.  The influence of elevated temperature conditioning on bison (Bison bison bison) meat quality. , 2000, Meat science.

[18]  H R Cross,et al.  Consumer evaluation of beef of known categories of tenderness. , 1997, Journal of animal science.