Literature DB >> 28727037

Assessment of objective measures of beef steak juiciness and their relationships to sensory panel juiciness ratings.

L W Lucherk, T G O'Quinn, J F Legako, R J Rathmann, J C Brooks, M F Miller.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate multiple instrumental measures of beef juiciness and determine their relationships with sensory panel juiciness ratings. Treatments were selected to maximize variation in juiciness and included 5 USDA quality grades (Prime, upper two-thirds Choice, lower one-third Choice, Select, and Standard) as well as 2 enhanced Select treatments (112 and 107% of the initial raw weight) and were prepared to 3 degrees of doneness (DOD; rare [66°C], medium [71°C], and well done [77°C]). A total of 21 objective measures of raw samples were evaluated and included marbling level, CIE color values, pH, water activity, proximate composition, and multiple measures of water-holding capacity. Also, 17 objective measures were evaluated for cooked beef samples and included cooking loss, drip loss, and compression-based methods used to quantify expressible moisture. These measures were compared with results from a previous sensory study to evaluate the relationship between the various objective measures and sensory panel juiciness ratings. Differences ( < 0.05) were found among quality treatments for many of the measures evaluated, with the greatest differences occurring for many of the measures among samples cooked to different DOD. Of all the objective measures evaluated, protein percentage, cooking loss, and pressed juice percentage (PJP) were most closely associated ( < 0.05) with consumer juiciness ratings ( = -0.55, = -0.51, and = 0.45, respectively). Additionally, cooking loss and PJP were more closely associated ( < 0.05) with trained sensory panel initial and sustained juiciness ratings than all other measures evaluated. Regression analysis revealed that PJP explained ( < 0.05) 20, 48, and 45% of the variation in consumer, trained panel initial, and trained panel sustained juiciness scores, respectively. This was a greater percentage of the variation than slice shear force explained ( < 0.05) in trained sensory panel initial (39%) and sustained tenderness ratings (40%) and similar to the amount explained (26%) in consumer tenderness ratings. These results indicate PJP was a better predictor of sensory panel juiciness scores than all traits evaluated other than the cooking loss of steaks evaluated by sensory panelists. Pressed juice percentage explained a similar or greater amount of variation in sensory panel scores as slice shear force, indicating PJP as a potential industry standard for objective juiciness evaluation.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28727037     DOI: 10.2527/jas.2016.0930

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


  5 in total

1.  Evaluation of marbling and enhancement's abilities to compensate for reduced beef palatability at elevated degrees of doneness.

Authors:  Lindsey N Drey; Lauren L Prill; Brittany A Olson; Emily A Rice; John M Gonzalez; Jessie L Vipham; Terry A Houser; Elizabeth A E Boyle; Travis G O'Quinn
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2019-02-01       Impact factor: 3.159

2.  Effects of gender and slaughter age on meat quality of Anatolian water buffaloes.

Authors:  Adem Turan; Hulya Yalcintan; Abdulkadir Orman; Bulent Ekiz
Journal:  Trop Anim Health Prod       Date:  2021-07-27       Impact factor: 1.559

Review 3.  Biology, strategies, and fresh meat consequences of manipulating the fatty acid composition of meat.

Authors:  Derris D Burnett; Jerrad F Legako; Kelsey J Phelps; John M Gonzalez
Journal:  J Anim Sci       Date:  2020-02-01       Impact factor: 3.159

Review 4.  Consumer Perception of Beef Quality and How to Control, Improve and Predict It? Focus on Eating Quality.

Authors:  Jingjing Liu; Marie-Pierre Ellies-Oury; Todor Stoyanchev; Jean-François Hocquette
Journal:  Foods       Date:  2022-06-13

5.  Meat Analogues: Relating Structure to Texture and Sensory Perception.

Authors:  Layla Godschalk-Broers; Guido Sala; Elke Scholten
Journal:  Foods       Date:  2022-07-26
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.