Constraints on establishing threshold levels for Warner–Bratzler shear-force values based on consumer sensory ratings for seven beef muscles
L. Powell A , K. L. Nicholson A , D. Huerta-Montauti A , R. K. Miller A and J. W. Savell A B
+ Author Affiliations
- Author Affiliations
A Meat Science Section, Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, 2471 TAMU, College Station, TX 77843-2471, USA.
B Corresponding author. Email: j-savell@tamu.edu
Animal Production Science 51(10) 959-966 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN10267
Submitted: 7 December 2010 Accepted: 18 July 2011 Published: 11 October 2011
Abstract
Steaks (n = 560) from US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Choice and Select, including M. gluteobiceps, M. gluteus medius, M. infraspinatus, M. longissimus lumborum, M. rectus femoris, M. triceps brachii and M. vastus lateralis, were evaluated for palatability characteristics and tenderness acceptability by a central-location consumer panel (n = 205 consumers) and Warner–Bratzler shear (WBS) analysis to determine whether threshold values could be identified for these muscles. There were significant interactions for muscle × USDA quality grade for sensory-panel overall like and WBS values. In general, USDA quality grade affected overall like and WBS values for the M. gluteobiceps and M. rectus femoris, but no real differences due to grade were found for the rest of the muscles studied, except for the WBS values for the M. gluteus medius. Regardless of USDA quality grade, the M. infraspinatus had the lowest (P < 0.05) WBS values and was comparable (P > 0.05) in overall like ratings to the M. longissimus lumborum. Percentage of muscles that would be expected to have a tenderness rating ‘slightly tender’ or higher on the basis of WBS values at the 95% confidence interval ranged from 40% for the M. vastus lateralis to 100% for the M. infraspinatus. There were no clear threshold levels for WBS values that would correspond to certain tenderness like ratings, possibly because of the narrow range of tenderness observed within each muscle. For the muscles studied, how consumers rated them appeared to be independent of the WBS values and may make it difficult to develop WBS thresholds for predicting consumer acceptability of these muscles.
Additional keywords: beef, sensory analysis, value cuts.
References
AMSA (1995) ‘Research guidelines for cookery, sensory evaluation, and instrumental measurements of fresh meat.’ (American Meat Science Association and National Live Stock and Meat Board: Chicago, IL)Belew JB, Brooks JC, McKenna DR, Savell JW (2003) Warner–Bratzler shear evaluations of 40 bovine muscles. Meat Science 64, 507–512.
| Warner–Bratzler shear evaluations of 40 bovine muscles.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Boleman SJ, Boleman SL, Miller RK, Taylor JF, Cross HR, Wheeler TL, Koohmaraie M, Shackelford SD, Miller MF, West RL, Johnson DD, Savell JW (1997) Consumer evaluation of beef of known categories of tenderness. Journal of Animal Science 75, 1521–1524.
Brooks JC, Belew JB, Griffin DB, Gwartney BL, Hale DS, Henning WR, Johnson DD, Morgan JB, Parrish FC, Reagan JO, Savell JW (2000) National Beef Tenderness Survey – 1998. Journal of Animal Science 78, 1852–1860.
Goodson KJ, Morgan WW, Reagan JO, Gwartney BL, Courington SM, Wise JW, Savell JW (2002) Beef customer satisfaction: factors affecting consumer evaluations of clod steaks. Journal of Animal Science 80, 401–408.
Huffman KL, Miller MF, Hoover LC, Wu CK, Brittin HC, Ramsey CB (1996) Effect of beef tenderness on consumer satisfaction with steaks consumed in the home and restaurant. Journal of Animal Science 74, 91–97.
Hwang IH, Park BY, Cho SH, Lee JM, Kim YG, Kim JH, Thompson JM (2003) Relationships between WB-shear force and sensory tenderness scores for three muscles prepared using different cooking methods in tenderstretch and normally hung sides. In ‘Proceedings of the International Congress of Meat Science and Technology’, 31 August – 5 September 2003, Campinas, SP, Brazil. pp. 266–267.
International Committee on Veterinary Gross Anatomical Nomenclature (2005) ‘Nomina anatomica veterinaria.’ 5th edn. Available at http://www.wava-amav.org/Downloads/nav_2005.pdf [Verified 8 January 2010].
Lorenzen CL, Miller RK, Taylor JF, Neely TR, Tatum JD, Wise JW, Buyck MJ, Reagan JO, Savell JW (2003) Beef customer satisfaction: trained sensory panel ratings and Warner–Bratzler shear force values. Journal of Animal Science 81, 143–149.
Luchak GL, Miller RK, Belk KE, Hale DS, Michaelsen SA, Johnson DD, West RL, Leak FW, Cross HR, Savell JW (1998) Determination of sensory, chemical and cooking characteristics of retail beef cuts differing in intramuscular and external fat. Meat Science 50, 55–72.
| Determination of sensory, chemical and cooking characteristics of retail beef cuts differing in intramuscular and external fat.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Lusk JL, Fox JA, Schroeder TC, Minert J, Koohmaraie M (2001) In-store valuation of steak tenderness. American Journal of Agricultural Economics 83, 539–550.
| In-store valuation of steak tenderness.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
McKeith FK, De Vol DL, Miles RS, Bechtel PJ, Carr TR (1985) Chemical and sensory properties of thirteen major beef muscles. Journal of Food Science 50, 869–872.
| Chemical and sensory properties of thirteen major beef muscles.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DyaL2MXks12qtbw%3D&md5=2b6f4e2a1cc27fd8f44340d446dfde50CAS |
Miller MF, Hoover LC, Cook KD, Guerra AL, Huffman KL, Tinney KS, Ramsey CB, Brittin HC, Huffman LM (1995) Consumer acceptability of beef steak tenderness in the home and restaurant. Journal of Food Science 60, 963–965.
| Consumer acceptability of beef steak tenderness in the home and restaurant.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DyaK2MXosVKjt7w%3D&md5=5bd462444722264a28918c940116e839CAS |
Miller MF, Carr MA, Ramsey CB, Crockett KL, Hoover LC (2001) Consumer thresholds for establishing the value of beef tenderness. Journal of Animal Science 79, 3062–3068.
Morgan JB, Savell JW, Hale DS, Miller RK, Griffin DB, Cross HR, Shackelford SD (1991) National Beef Tenderness Survey. Journal of Animal Science 69, 3274–3283.
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (2001) ‘Beef value cuts — New cuts for the new consumer: maximizing single muscles from the chuck and round.’ (National Cattlemen’s Beef Association: Centennial, CO)
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (2006) ‘The beef industry long range plan: 2010.’ (National Cattlemen’s Beef Association: Centennial, CO)
Neely TR, Lorenzen CL, Miller RK, Tatum JD, Wise JW, Taylor JF, Buyck MJ, Reagan JO, Savell JW (1998) Beef customer satisfaction: role of cut, USDA quality grade, and city on in-home consumer ratings. Journal of Animal Science 76, 1027–1033.
Neter J, Wasserman W, Kutner MH (1989) ‘Applied linear regression models.’ 2nd edn. (Richard D. Irwin, Inc.: Burr Ridge, IL)
North American Meat Processors Association (2010) ‘The meat buyer’s guide™.’ 6th edn. (North American Meat Processors Association: Reston, VA)
Perry D, Thompson JM, Hwang IH, Butchers A, Egan AF (2001) Relationship between objective measurements and taste panel assessment of beef quality. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 41, 981–989.
| Relationship between objective measurements and taste panel assessment of beef quality.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Platter WJ, Tatum JD, Belk KE, Chapman PL, Scanga JA, Smith GC (2003) Relationships of consumer sensory ratings, marbling score, and shear force value to consumer acceptance of beef strip loin steaks. Journal of Animal Science 81, 2741–2750.
Polkinghorne R, Thompson JM, Watson R, Gee A, Porter M (2008) Evolution of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) beef grading system. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1351–1359.
| Evolution of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) beef grading system.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Savell JW, Branson RE, Cross HR, Stiffler DM, Wise JW, Griffin DB, Smith GC (1987) National consumer retail beef study: palatability evaluations of beef loin steaks that differed in marbling. Journal of Food Science 52, 517–519, 532.
| National consumer retail beef study: palatability evaluations of beef loin steaks that differed in marbling.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Shackelford SD, Morgan JB, Cross HR, Savell JW (1991) Identification of threshold levels for Warner–Bratzler shear force in beef top loin steaks. Journal of Muscle Foods 2, 289–296.
| Identification of threshold levels for Warner–Bratzler shear force in beef top loin steaks.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Shackelford SD, Wheeler TL, Koohmaraie M (1995) Relationship between shear force and trained sensory panel tenderness ratings of 10 major muscles from Bos indicus and Bos taurus cattle. Journal of Animal Science 73, 3333–3340.
Shackelford SD, Wheeler TL, Meade MK, Reagan JO, Byrnes BL, Koohmaraie M (2001) Consumer impressions of Tender Select beef. Journal of Animal Science 79, 2605–2614.
US Department of Agriculture (1997) United States standards for grades of carcass beef. Available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3002979 [Verified 16 July 2010].
US Department of Agriculture (2010) Institutional meat purchase specifications for fresh beef products: fresh beef series 100. Available at http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3003281 [Verified 27 September 2010].
Voges KL, Mason CL, Brooks JC, Delmore RJ, Griffin DB, Hale DS, Henning WR, Johnson DD, Lorenzen CL, Maddock RJ, Miller RK, Morgan JB, Baird BE, Gwartney BL, Savell JW (2007) National beef tenderness survey – 2006: assessment of Warner–Bratzler shear and sensory panel ratings for beef from US retail and foodservice establishments. Meat Science 77, 357–364.
| National beef tenderness survey – 2006: assessment of Warner–Bratzler shear and sensory panel ratings for beef from US retail and foodservice establishments.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Von Seggern DD, Calkins CR, Johnson DD, Brickler JE, Gwartney BL (2005) Muscle profiling: characterizing the muscles of the beef chuck and round. Meat Science 71, 39–51.
| Muscle profiling: characterizing the muscles of the beef chuck and round.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2MXmt1Wiu78%3D&md5=d16afce7d17dc1a031c632e899f72836CAS |
Watson R, Gee A, Polkinghorne R, Porter M (2008) Consumer assessment of eating quality – development of protocols for Meat Standards Australia (MSA) testing. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1360–1367.
| Consumer assessment of eating quality – development of protocols for Meat Standards Australia (MSA) testing.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
