The objective of this study was to compare the quality characteristics of current plant-based protein ground beef alternatives (GBA) to ground beef (GB) patties of varying fat percentages. Fifteen different production lots (n = 15 / fat level) of 1.36 kg GB chubs of three different fat levels (10%, 20%, and 27%) were collected from retail markets in the Manhattan, KS area. Additionally, GBA products including a foodservice GBA (FGBA), a retail GBA (RGBA), and a traditional soy-protein based GBA (TGBA) currently available through commercial channels were collected. Consumers (n = 120) evaluated sample appearance, juiciness, tenderness, overall flavor liking, beef flavor liking, texture liking, and overall liking. Additionally, samples were evaluated for color, texture profile, shear force, pressed juiciness percentage (PJP), pH, and fat and moisture percentage. All three GB samples rated higher (P < 0.05) than the three GBA samples for appearance liking, overall flavor liking, beef flavor liking, and overall liking by consumers. Similar results were found with trained sensory panelists, which rated the GBA as less (P < 0.05) juicy, softer (P < 0.05), and lower (P < 0.05) for beef flavor and odor intensity and higher (P < 0.05) for off-flavor intensity than the GB. Moreover, the GBA had less (P < 0.05) change in shape through cooking and a lower (P < 0.05) percentage of cooking loss and cooking time than the GB. Also, the GBA all had lower (P < 0.05) shear force and PJP values than the GB. The color of the GBA differed (P < 0.05) from the GB, with the GB samples being more (P < 0.05) red in the raw state. These results indicate that the GBA provide different eating and quality experiences than GB and should thus be considered as different products by consumers and retailers.

Sirloin cap steaks from four different USDA quality grades were evaluated to determine the effect of marbling on eating experience. Top sirloin cap steaks (N = 118) of four different quality grades (Prime, Top Choice, Low Choice, and Select) were evaluated in the current study. Top sirloin butts were collected and the biceps femoris was removed trimmed and sliced into twelve 2.54-cm thick steaks. The steaks from each subprimal were aged for 28 d and designated for either trained sensory panels, consumer sensory panels, Warner-Bratzler Shear Force (WBSF), or moisture and fat determination. The Prime steaks were rated the highest (P < 0.05) for overall liking and were higher (P < 0.05) for flavor liking than Low Choice and Select steaks within the consumer panels. However, all quality treatments were similar (P > 0.05) in juiciness and tenderness for the consumer panels. Additionally, a similar (P > 0.05) percentage of samples from each treatment were rated acceptable for tenderness, juiciness, flavor liking, and overall liking, with each trait having greater than 70% of samples rated acceptable Also, Prime steaks were rated the highest (P < 0.05) for sustained juiciness and overall tenderness within the trained sensory panels. Similarly, Prime steaks were rated higher (P < 0.05) for initial juiciness than the Low Choice and Select treatments but were similar (P > 0.05) to Top Choice. These results indicate USDA quality grades impact the eating quality of sirloin cap steaks, especially within the Prime grade, and could provide an opportunity for refined marketing and added economic value for the cut.

Palatability traits of ribeye, strip loin, andtenderloin steaks were evaluated in a bone-in versus boneless scenario. Eatingquality of these cuts was also evaluated in a high quality (upper 2/3 USDAChoice) and a lower quality (USDA Select) product to evaluate the interactionsof marbling level and bone state. Subprimals were collected from both sides of12 beef carcasses per quality grade and aged for 28-d. Product was fabricatedinto 2.5-cm thick steaks and designated for either trained sensory analysis,consumer sensory analysis, Warner-Bratzler Shear Force (WBSF), or fat andmoisture determination. Results from trainedsensory analysis showed bone-in tenderloins and bone-in ribeyes as moreflavorful (P < 0.05) than boneless cuts from the same muscle. Bonestate had no effect (P > 0.05) on trained sensory initial juiciness,myofibrillar tenderness, and overall tenderness scores, or WBSF for any cut.Furthermore, tenderloin samples were rated higher (P < 0.05) bytrained sensory panelists for myofibrillar and overall tenderness than striploin and ribeye steaks, which were similar (P > 0.05). Bone state hadno impact (P > 0.05) on consumer tenderness and flavor ratings forany of the three cuts. But, bone-in strip loin samples were rated juicier andhigher (P < 0.05) overall than boneless strip loin steaks byconsumers. Tenderloin steaks were juicier, more tender, more flavorful, andrated higher overall (P < 0.05) than ribeyes and boneless strip loinsteaks by consumers. Moreover, there were no differences (P > 0.05)between strip loins and ribeyes for flavor liking by consumers and nodifference (P > 0.05) in overall liking rating between ribeyes andboneless strip loin steaks. Overall, bone status had a minimal impact on beefpalatability traits, providing evidence that eating quality is not greatlyimpacted by bone status for any of the cuts evaluated.

The objective of this study was to evaluate consumers’ palatabilityratings of ground beef from the same source when provided information about thelabeling prior to evaluation. Chubs (n = 15) from the same productionlot and day of 80% lean / 20% fat ground beef were procured and fabricated into151.2 g patties. Pairs of patties from each chub, which was randomly assignedto one consumer panel session and were randomly assigned to 1 of 8 differentlabeling terms: all natural, animal raised without added antibiotics (WA),animal raised without added hormones (WH), fresh never frozen (FNF), grass-fed,locally sourced, premium quality, USDA organic (ORG), and a blank sample(NONE). Consumers (N = 105) evaluated each sample on 0-to-100-point linescales for tenderness, juiciness, flavor liking, texture liking, overall likingand purchasing intent, as well as evaluated each palatability trait as eitheracceptable or unacceptable. Prior to sample evaluation, the consumers wereprovided additional labeling information about the ground beef. Consumers foundno differences (P > 0.05) among the samples with the differentlabeling terms for tenderness, juiciness, texture liking, overall liking, tendernessacceptability, flavor acceptability, and texture acceptability for all thetreatments evaluated. For flavor liking, there was a larger increase (P <0.05) in ratings for samples labeled as grass-fed in comparison to WA, WH, andpremium quality labeled samples. There was a large increase (P <0.05) in the consumer ratings for overall liking when product was labeled as allnatural, WA, WH, FNF, locally sourced, premium quality, and ORG. Additionally, therewas a larger decrease (P < 0.05) in the percentage of samples ratedas acceptable overall when labeled as WA in comparison to all other treatments.These results indicate that adding production claims that consumers arefamiliar with can improve their palatability perception.

No abstract