Literature DB >> 23230117

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.

M R Guelker1, A N Haneklaus, J C Brooks, C C Carr, R J Delmore, D B Griffin, D S Hale, K B Harris, G G Mafi, D D Johnson, C L Lorenzen, R J Maddock, J N Martin, R K Miller, C R Raines, D L VanOverbeke, L L Vedral, B E Wasser, J W Savell.   

Abstract

The tenderness and palatability of retail and food service beef steaks from across the United States (12 cities for retail, 5 cities for food service) were evaluated using Warner-Bratzler shear (WBS) and consumer sensory panels. Subprimal postfabrication storage or aging times at retail establishments averaged 20.5 d with a range of 1 to 358 d, whereas postfabrication times at the food service level revealed an average time of 28.1 d with a range of 9 to 67 d. Approximately 64% of retail steaks were labeled with a packer/processor or store brand. For retail, top blade had among the lowest (P < 0.05) WBS values, whereas steaks from the round had the greatest (P < 0.05) values. There were no differences (P > 0.05) in WBS values between moist-heat and dry-heat cookery methods for the top round and bottom round steaks or between enhanced (contained salt or phosphate solution) or nonenhanced steaks. Food service top loin and rib eye steaks had the lowest (P < 0.05) WBS values compared with top sirloin steaks. Retail top blade steaks and food service top loin steaks received among the greatest (P < 0.05) consumer sensory panel ratings compared with the other steaks evaluated. Prime food service rib eye steaks received the greatest ratings (P < 0.05) for overall like, like tenderness, tenderness level, like juiciness, and juiciness level, whereas ungraded rib eye steaks received the lowest ratings (P < 0.05) for like tenderness and tenderness level. The WBS values for food service steaks were greater (P < 0.05) for the Select and ungraded groups compared with the Prime, Top Choice, and Low Choice groups. The WBS values and sensory ratings were comparable to the last survey, signifying that no recent or substantive changes in tenderness have occurred.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2012        PMID: 23230117     DOI: 10.2527/jas.2012-5785

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Anim Sci        ISSN: 0021-8812            Impact factor:   3.159


  5 in total

1.  Effects of extended postmortem aging and intramuscular location on protein degradation, muscle fiber morphometrics, and tenderness of beef longissimus lumborum and semitendinosus steaks.

Authors:  MaryAnn J Matney; Morgan E Gravely; Travis G O'Quinn; James S Drouillard; Kelsey J Phelps-Ronningen; Terry A Houser; Allison W Hobson; Hanna M Alcocer; John M Gonzalez
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2021-10-01       Impact factor: 3.338

2.  United States beef quality as chronicled by the National Beef Quality Audits, Beef Consumer Satisfaction Projects, and National Beef Tenderness Surveys - A review.

Authors:  John Michael Gonzalez; Kelsey Jean Phelps
Journal:  Asian-Australas J Anim Sci       Date:  2018-05-31       Impact factor: 2.509

3.  Effects of feeding lubabegron on gas emissions, growth performance, and carcass characteristics of beef cattle housed in small-pen environmentally monitored enclosures during the last 3 mo of the finishing period.

Authors:  J Scott Teeter; Samantha J Werth; Sandra L Gruber; John C Kube; Jacob A Hagenmaier; Janet B Allen; Cory T Herr; Michael S Brown; Dustin Boler; Anna C Dilger; Yongjing Zhao; Yuee Pan; Frank M Mitloehner
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2021-12-01       Impact factor: 3.159

Review 4.  Drivers of Consumer Liking for Beef, Pork, and Lamb: A Review.

Authors:  Rhonda Miller
Journal:  Foods       Date:  2020-04-03

5.  The influence of muscle, ageing and thermal treatment method on the quality of cooked beef.

Authors:  Monika Modzelewska-Kapituła; Katarzyna Tkacz; Zenon Nogalski
Journal:  J Food Sci Technol       Date:  2021-02-08       Impact factor: 2.701

  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.