Consumer Palatability of Beef Muscles From Australian and US Production Systems With or Without Enhancement

The objective was to assess the consumer (n = 360) palatability and satisfaction of enhanced (7%) and nonenhanced Australian grain-fed, Australian grass-fed, and US grain-fed beef from 2 beef muscles. Strip loin (longissimus lumborum [LL]) and top sirloin butt (gluteus medius [GM]) subprimals were collected from 12 Australian grass-fed, 12 Australian grain-fed, and 12 US grain-fed (USDA Choice) carcasses. In addition, tenderloin (psoas major) and eye of round (semitendinosus) subprimals were collected from the same US carcasses to serve as anchors for high and low palatability. All subprimals were aged until 29 to 32 d postmortem. All fabrication and enhancement occurred in Lubbock, Texas. Data were analyzed initially as a randomized complete design and subsequently as a split-split plot design, with the main effects of country of origin/diet (Australian grain-fed, Australian grass-fed, and US grain-fed), muscle (LL and GM), and enhancement (0% or 7%) and all potential interactions as fixed effects. Enhancement significantly improved palatability in both LL and GM steaks as evidenced by greater (P < 0.05) consumer ratings for tenderness, juiciness, flavor liking, overall liking, and satisfaction. Enhancing LL steaks resulted in consumer responses that were comparable or superior to consumer responses for psoas major samples. Similarly, enhancing GM steaks resulted in consumer responses that were comparable or superior to nonenhanced LL samples. Consumers reacted least favorably to nonenhanced Australian grass-fed beef as they rated all palatability traits lowest (P < 0.05) for both LL and GM samples. However, enhancing grassfed beef resulted in consumer responses that were similar (P > 0.05) to nonenhanced grain-fed beef. This response to enhancement was observed in consumer scores for both LL and GM samples. Consumers could not detect differences (P > 0.05) in tenderness, juiciness, flavor, overall liking, or satisfaction between grain-fed beef from Australia and the US.

Exploring Consumer Palatability of Australian Beef Fajita Meat Enhanced with Phosphate or Sodium Bicarbonate

The objective of this study was to determine the consumer eating quality of five Australian beef muscles (outside skirt/diaphragm, inside skirt/transversus abdominis, inside round cap/gracilis, bottom sirloin flap/obliquus abdominis internus, and flank steak/rectus abdominis) served as fajita strips. All the muscles were divided in half and enhanced (12%) with a brine solution containing either phosphate, a “clean label” ingredient sodium bicarbonate, or not enhanced. Muscle and enhancement independently influenced (P < 0.01) tenderness, juiciness, flavor, and overall liking. Overall, the bottom sirloin flap was liked the most (P < 0.05) when compared with all the other muscles, while the inside round cap was liked less but did not differ (P > 0.05) from the inside skirt or flank steak. Samples enhanced with sodium bicarbonate were the most (P < 0.05) tender and juicy; samples enhanced with phosphate were intermediate, and the control samples were the least tender and juicy, regardless of the muscle. Flavor and overall liking were similar (P > 0.05) between clean and phosphate-enhanced samples, and both were liked more than the control samples. Enhancement was necessary for acceptable eating quality of all the muscles evaluated in this study; however, the inside round cap was the least suitable. These results indicate that a “clean label” enhanced fajita product is possible without compromising cooking yield or consumer satisfaction.

The Effects of Enhancement Strategies of Beef Flanks on Composition and Consumer Palatability Characteristics

Beef rectus abdominis muscles (n = 100; 20/treatment) were assigned randomly to 1 of 5 treatments: untreated control (Control, No Treatment; CNT), vacuum tumbled control without marinade (Tumbled Control, No Treatment; TCNT), vacuum tumbled with marinade (TUMB), injected with marinade (INJ), and injected with marinade plus vacuum tumbled (IPT) to determine how enhancement techniques influence consumer palatability. After processing, flank samples were cooked (72°C), cut into 1.3-cm strips, and served as fajita strips for consumer evaluation (n = 200). Treatment influenced (P &lt; 0.01) the rating and acceptability of all palatability traits, overall liking, and willingness to pay (WTP). Consumers scored IPT and INJ more tender compared to all other treatments (P &lt; 0.05). Samples processed using IPT and INJ were juicier (P &lt; 0.05) than all other treatments, except INJ and TUMB were similar (P &gt; 0.05). Samples processed using TUMB and INJ were similar (P &gt; 0.05) for flavor and WTP, and INJ, IPT, and TUMB samples were similar (P &gt; 0.05) for overall liking. Thus, consumers were willing to pay more for IPT than TUMB (P &lt; 0.05). Consumers scored CNT and TCNT lower for all palatability traits which resulted in lower WTP (P &lt; 0.05). Inclusion of a marinade improved the eating quality of samples compared to CNT and TCNT. The delivery method of the brine solution was less important to palatability as the presence of a marinade, as IPT, INJ, and TUMB were all similar (P &gt; 0.05) for overall liking. Injection plus tumbling improved tenderness, juiciness, and flavor liking scores over tumbling alone, but not over injection alone. Injection influenced consumer tenderness more than tumbling, but tumbling had greater effects on cooked moisture than injection. While IPT did not surpass either TUMB or INJ in all sensory categories, IPT does excel when considering moisture retention along with palatability.

Palatability of Beef Strip Loin Steaks Following Variable Length High-Concentrate Diet Exposure Prior to Pasture-Finishing

Proximate composition, Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF), consumer sensory traits, fatty acid composition, and volatile flavor compounds were assessed on steaks from USDA Select strip loins (n = 40; 8/treatment) representing grass-fed beef sourced from New Zealand (NZ) with marbling consistent with USDA Select along with strip loins from four feeding treatments designed to evaluate the effects of early exposure to grain-based diets for 0 d (0D), 40 d (40D), 80 d (80D), or 120 d (120D) prior to pasture-finishing on meat quality and composition. Percent fat, moisture, and protein and WBSF did not differ (P > 0.05), but percent ash was decreased in 120D samples compared to those from NZ, 0D, and 40D (P < 0.05). Consumer scores for all traits differed among samples from the treatments (P < 0.05), with steaks from NZ receiving greater scores for flavor liking than those from 0D, 40D, and 80D (P < 0.05). Consumers also rated NZ and 120D samples greatest for overall liking (P < 0.05). Saturated fatty acids were decreased, and monounsaturated fatty acids were increased in NZ samples compared to samples from all other treatments (P < 0.05), and conjugated linoleic acid was least in samples from NZ (P < 0.05). The ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fatty acids was greater in 80D and 120D samples than those from all other treatments (P < 0.05). Non-enzymatic browning-derived ketones and 2-pentylfuran were increased in samples from NZ compared to those from all other treatments (P < 0.05), and differences among treatments in lipid-derived compounds were primarily of alcohols and aldehydes. Early exposure to grain-based diets for 120 d prior to pasture-finishing produces beef that is comparable to grass-fed beef from New Zealand in palatability but differs in chemical composition.

Influence of Production Practice Information on Consumer Eating Quality Ratings of Beef Top Loin Steaks

The purpose of this study was to identify if consumers’ palatability scores of beef top loin steaks were affected by disclosing production practices or brands related to each product. Strip loins were selected to represent 5 treatments: Grain-Fed Natural (Natural), Certified Angus Beef (CAB), Local Grass Fed (Grass), USDA Select (Conventional), and USDA Certified Organic (Organic). Two separate experiments were conducted (n = 120/experiment). In Experiment 1 and 2, panelists received the 5 treatment samples in a standard blind testing format in segment 1 (S1). In the second segment (S2) of Experiment 1, short descriptions were read aloud to participants before receiving each of their 5 samples, but all samples were actually USDA Select (false disclosure). In the second segment of Experiment 2, treatment descriptions were provided that matched the 5 treatments samples (true disclosure). When consumers evaluated samples in S1, they rated the Natural and CAB samples more tender and juicier (P < 0.05) than the other 3 treatments, and Organic was the least tender. Flavor and overall liking were greater (P < 0.05) for Natural and CAB steaks, while Conventional was intermediate, and flavor and overall liking were lowest for Grass and Organic (P < 0.05). When consumers received Select samples representing the 5 treatments, false disclosure decreased tenderness and juiciness of Natural, increased flavor liking of CAB, and increased tenderness, flavor liking, and overall liking of Organic (P < 0.05). True treatment disclosure increased flavor liking and overall liking of CAB and Grass, increased overall liking of Natural, and decreased juiciness of Conventional (P < 0.05). These results indicate consumers’ perception of eating quality can be influenced by quality differentiated brand names and labeling claims, particularly claims related to production practices.

Consumer Assessment of New Zealand Forage Finished Beef Compared to US Grain Fed Beef

Consumer sensory analysis was conducted to determine differences in beef palatability between three process-verified feeding programs (New Zealand fodder beet, New Zealand grass/non-fodder beet, US grain). Beef strip loins were selected to represent low or high expected eating quality (based on eligibility for the company’s branded program, which focuses on carcass attributes of marbling, ossification, pH, 12th rib fat, and HCW), resulting in 6 treatments: fodder beet low quality (FBL), fodder beet high quality (FBH), non-fodder beet low quality (NFBL), and non-fodder beet high quality (NFBH), Select (SEL) and Top Choice (TCH). Samples were aged until 21 or 35 d postmortem. Extending postmortem aging positively influenced (P < 0.05) New Zealand non-fodder beet samples, but largely had no effect (P > 0.05) on New Zealand fodder beet samples, with the exception that tenderness was improved (P < 0.05). Postmortem aging had a negative impact (P < 0.05) on SEL juiciness and TC flavor and overall liking and no impact (P > 0.05) on all remaining traits of US grain fed beef loin steaks. When focusing on the high eating quality samples, consumers did not discriminate between finishing systems when samples were aged 35 d, scoring TCH, FBH, and NFBH similarly (P > 0.05) for all palatability traits. The FBL and NFBL were normally scored similarly (P > 0.05) or with a slight advantage over SEL, regardless of aging period. Ultimately, finishing beef cattle using fodder beet in New Zealand can be a viable option to supply high quality beef during winter months, while maintaining the eating quality expectations associated with “grass-fed” beef according to US consumers from the Lubbock, TX area.