Palatability of beef chuck, loin, and round muscles from three USDA quality grades.

The objective of this study was to determine the palatability of various beef cuts from 3 USDA quality grades. Five different beef subprimals from USDA Prime, Choice, and Select (n = 10/quality grade) carcasses were utilized for the study, including: strip loins, inside rounds, bottom rounds, shoulder clods, and chuck rolls. Subprimals were fabricated into 9 retail cuts, which contained the following beef muscles: longissimus lumborum (LL); longissimus thoracis, complexus, and spinalis dorsi (LCS); infraspinatus (IF); serratus ventralis (SV); triceps brachii (TB); teres major (TM); adductor (AD); semimembranosus (SM); and biceps femoris (BF). The pH and percentage of fat, moisture, protein, and collagen was determined for each muscle on a raw basis. Additionally, cooked steak measurements included Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF) and slice shear force (SSF). Consumer and trained sensory panelists evaluated palatability traits of each cut and quality grade combination. A quality grade × muscle interaction was determined for trained panelists assessment of overall tenderness (P = 0.03), SSF (P = 0.02), proximate composition (P < 0.01), and pH (P < 0.01). In all objective and subjective measurements of tenderness, the LCS was the most tender (P < 0.05), while cuts from the round (BF, AD, and SM) were among the toughest and least juicy (P < 0.05). Conversely, consumers and trained sensory panelists identified the LCS, IF, and SV to be juicier (P < 0.05) than all others. The TB, TM, and LL were perceived by consumers most often as being everyday quality. The LCS was found by consumers to be the most acceptable (P < 0.05) across all attributes, with the SM being the least (P < 0.05) acceptable muscle. For each muscle, fat percentage was the greatest (P < 0.05) in Prime cuts. Slice shear force determined Prime IF, LL, and SV to be more tender (P < 0.05) than Choice and Select. No SSF differences (P > 0.05) were found among quality grades for the AD, BF, and SM. The WBSF values decreased (P < 0.05) across all muscles, as quality grade increased (Prime < Choice < Select). The results of this study indicate that muscles from the chuck may be utilized to provide consumers with a positive eating experience. Meanwhile, muscles from the round are likely to provide consumers with a lower quality eating experience.

[1]  K. Vierck,et al.  Marbling Texture’s Effects on Beef Palatability 1 , 2018 .

[2]  T. O’Quinn,et al.  Evaluation of the contribution of tenderness, juiciness, and flavor to the overall consumer beef eating experience1 , 2018, Translational animal science.

[3]  C. Calkins,et al.  Evaluation of palatability and muscle composition of novel value-added beef cuts. , 2018, Meat science.

[4]  J. Gonzalez,et al.  Repeatability and Accuracy of the Pressed Juice Percentage Method at Sorting Steaks into Juiciness Categories , 2017 .

[5]  M. Miller,et al.  Consumer and trained panel evaluation of beef strip steaks of varying marbling and enhancement levels cooked to three degrees of doneness. , 2016, Meat science.

[6]  T. Houser,et al.  The effect of branding on consumer palatability ratings of beef strip loin steaks. , 2016, Journal of animal science.

[7]  S. Joo,et al.  Muscle profiling to improve the value of retail meat cuts. , 2016, Meat science.

[8]  M. Miller,et al.  Assessment of volatile compounds, neutral and polar lipid fatty acids of four beef muscles from USDA Choice and Select graded carcasses and their relationships with consumer palatability scores and intramuscular fat content. , 2016, Meat science.

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

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

[11]  D. S. Buchanan,et al.  Consumer evaluation of palatability characteristics of a beef value-added cut compared to common retail cuts. , 2014, Meat science.

[12]  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.

[13]  E. Huff-Lonergan,et al.  Profile of biochemical traits influencing tenderness of muscles from the beef round. , 2012, Meat science.

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

[15]  Shirley Anderson,et al.  Determination of fat, moisture, and protein in meat and meat products by using the FOSS FoodScan Near-Infrared Spectrophotometer with FOSS Artificial Neural Network Calibration Model and Associated Database: collaborative study. , 2007, Journal of AOAC International.

[16]  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.

[17]  D. Wulf,et al.  Evaluating consumer acceptability and willingness to pay for various beef chuck muscles. , 2005, Journal of animal science.

[18]  C. Calkins,et al.  Muscle profiling: Characterizing the muscles of the beef chuck and round. , 2005, Meat science.

[19]  Z. Johnson,et al.  Effects of sodium chloride, phosphate type and concentration, and pump rate on beef biceps femoris quality and sensory characteristics. , 2005, Meat science.

[20]  J. B. Morgan,et al.  Characterization of certified Angus beef steaks from the round, loin, and chuck. , 2004, Journal of animal science.

[21]  S. Shackelford,et al.  Variation in palatability and biochemical traits within and among eleven beef muscles. , 2004, Journal of animal science.

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

[23]  L. E. Jeremiah,et al.  Assessment of palatability attributes of the major beef muscles. , 2003, Meat science.

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

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

[26]  D. S. Hale,et al.  National Beef Tenderness Survey-1998. , 2000, Journal of animal science.

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

[28]  H. Cross,et al.  National Consumer Retail Beef Study: Palatability Evaluations of Beef Loin Steaks that Differed in Marbling , 1987 .

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