Consumer assessment of beef tenderloin steaks from various USDA quality grades at 3 degrees of doneness.

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, medium-rare, 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.

[1]  M. Miller,et al.  Sensory evaluation of tender beef strip loin steaks of varying marbling levels and quality treatments. , 2015, Meat science.

[2]  M. Miller,et al.  Consumer assessment of beef palatability from four beef muscles from USDA Choice and Select graded carcasses. , 2014, Meat science.

[3]  J. D. Tatum,et al.  Effectiveness of USDA instrument-based marbling measurements for categorizing beef carcasses according to differences in longissimus muscle sensory attributes. , 2013, Journal of animal science.

[4]  D. S. Hale,et al.  National Beef Tenderness Survey-2010: Warner-Bratzler shear force values and sensory panel ratings for beef steaks from United States retail and food service establishments. , 2013, Journal of animal science.

[5]  B. Johnson,et al.  Consumer assessment of beef strip loin steaks of varying fat levels. , 2012, Journal of animal science.

[6]  A. Reicks,et al.  Demographics and beef preferences affect consumer motivation for purchasing fresh beef steaks and roasts. , 2011, Meat science.

[7]  J. D. Tatum,et al.  Effects of postmortem aging and USDA quality grade on Warner-Bratzler shear force values of seventeen individual beef muscles. , 2006, Journal of animal science.

[8]  J. O. Reagan,et al.  Beef customer satisfaction: USDA quality grade and marination effects on consumer evaluations of top round steaks. , 2005, Journal of animal science.

[9]  D. Wulf,et al.  Evaluating consumer acceptability of various muscles from the beef chuck and rib. , 2004, Journal of animal science.

[10]  J. Savell,et al.  Warner-Bratzler shear evaluations of 40 bovine muscles. , 2003, Meat science.

[11]  B. Giménez,et al.  Shear values of raw samples of 14 bovine muscles and their relation to muscle collagen characteristics. , 2003, Meat science.

[12]  J. O. Reagan,et al.  Beef customer satisfaction: trained sensory panel ratings and Warner-Bratzler shear force values. , 2003, Journal of animal science.

[13]  M. Miller,et al.  Consumer thresholds for establishing the value of beef tenderness. , 2001, Journal of animal science.

[14]  J. O. Reagan,et al.  Beef customer satisfaction: cooking method and degree of doneness effects on the top round steak. , 1999, Journal of animal science.

[15]  D. S. Hale,et al.  Determination of sensory, chemical and cooking characteristics of retail beef cuts differing in intramuscular and external fat. , 1998, Meat science.

[16]  J. O. Reagan,et al.  Beef customer satisfaction: role of cut, USDA quality grade, and city on in-home consumer ratings. , 1998, Journal of animal science.

[17]  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.

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

[19]  T. R. Dutson,et al.  Factors associated with the tenderness of three bovine muscles. , 1988 .

[20]  G. W. Davis,et al.  RELATIONSHIP OF USDA QUALITY GRADES TO PALATABILITY OF COOKED BEEF , 1987 .

[21]  G. W. Davis,et al.  RELATIONSHIP OF USDA MARBLING GROUPS TO PALATABILITY OF COOKED BEEF , 1985 .

[22]  J. D. Tatum,et al.  Carcass Characteristics, Time on Feed and Cooked Beef Palatability Attributes , 1980 .

[23]  H. B. Hedrick,et al.  PROFILE OF FIBER TYPES AND RELATED PROPERTIES OF FIVE BOVINE MUSCLES , 1977 .

[24]  H. Cross,et al.  Beef Palatability as Affected by Cooking Rate and Final Internal Temperature1 , 1976 .

[25]  A. Kotula,et al.  Quality Characteristics of Bovine Meat. II. Beef Tenderness in Relation to Individual Muscles, Age and Sex of Animals and Carcass Quality Grade , 1975 .

[26]  R. E. Rust,et al.  Effect of Degree of Marbling and Internal Temperature of Doneness on Beef Rib Steaks , 1973 .

[27]  H. Fitzhugh,et al.  Influence of Carcass Position During Rigor Mortis on Tenderness of Beef Muscles: Comparison of two Treatments , 1970 .

[28]  R. Cassens,et al.  Further Studies on Bovine Muscle Tenderness as Influenced by Carcass Position, Sarcomere Length, and Fiber Diameter , 1965 .