Blended meat/plant products are capturing industry market space at the retail counter for value-added beef products. Plant protein ingredients can be added to meat formulations to create appealing and functional products. Ground beef was combined with one of three plant protein inclusion treatments: control, pea, oat, or rice, along with 5% textured vegetable protein (TVP) and 1.5% soy protein concentrate then formed into 226 g patties containing up to 10% plant-based proteins. Patties were analyzed for fresh and cooked characteristics throughout a 5- or 7-day retail display. The inclusion of plant-based proteins negatively affected the instrumental tenderness values which were greater (p < 0.01) in plant-inclusion patties compared to the control patties. The inclusion of plant proteins increased (p = 0.01) the cooking yield of patties compared to the control. Cooking time was longer (p = 0.04) for oat patties compared to the control patties. Cooked color values for vegetable inclusion patties did not affect (p = 0.12) lightness (CIE L*) values; however, redness (CIE a*) was greater (p < 0.01) for rice than all other treatments and yellowness (CIE b*) values were greater (p < 0.01) for all protein treatments compared to the control. Rice improved (p < 0.01) fresh a* values on day 5 of display compared to the control; whereas pea decreased (p = 0.04) values compared to the control. There was a treatment × day interaction (p < 0.01) on lipid oxidation values with a reduction in values on day 3 for all vegetable proteins compared to the control and on day 7 lipid oxidation was reduced (p ≤ 0.03) for oat patties.

Packaging technology is evolving, and the objectives of this study were to evaluate instrumental surface color, expert color evaluation, and lipid oxidation (TBARS) on beef longissimus lumborum steaks packaged in vacuum-ready packaging (VRF) or polyvinyl chloride (PVC) overwrap packaging. Paired strip loins (Institutional Meat Purchasing Specifications # 180) were cut into 2.54-cm-thick steaks and assigned randomly to one of two packaging treatments, VRF or PVC. Steaks packaged in VRF were lighter in color (p < 0.05) as the display period increased, whereas steaks packaged in PVC became darker (p < 0.05). Redness (a*) values were greater (p < 0.05) for PVC steaks until day 5, whereas VRF steaks had a greater (p < 0.05) surface redness from day 10 to 35 of the display period. Calculated spectral values of red to brown were greater (p < 0.05) for steaks in VRF than PVC. In addition, expert color evaluators confirmed VRF steaks were less brown and less discolored (p < 0.05) from day 5 to 35 of the display. Nonetheless, lipid oxidation was greater (p < 0.05) for PVC steaks from day 10 through day 35 of the display. Results from this study suggest that the use of vacuum packaging for beef steaks is plausible for maintaining surface color characteristics during extended display periods.

With current meat industry efforts focused on improving environmental influencers, adopting sustainable packaging materials may be an easier transition to addressing the sustainability demands of the meat consumer. With the growing popularity of vacuum-packaged meat products, the current study evaluated instrumental surface color on fresh ground beef using vacuum packaging films, recycle-ready film (RRF), standard barrier (STB) and enhanced barrier (ENB). Ground beef packaged using ENB barrier film was lighter (L*), redder (a*) and more vivid (chroma) than all other packaging treatments during the simulated display period (p < 0.05). By day 12 of the simulated retail display, the ground beef surface color became lighter (L*), more yellow (b*), less red (a*), less vivid (chroma) and contained greater forms of calculated metmyoglobin, oxymyoglobin (p < 0.05). The current results suggest that barrier properties of vacuum packaging film for ground beef are pivotal for extending the surface color during fresh shelf-life conditions.

M. biceps femoris (BF), m. semimembranosus (SM) and m. semitendinosus (ST) from fresh pork ham were evaluated for characteristics of quality after cooking to an internal endpoint temperature of 62 °C or 73 °C. Fresh ham muscles from the left side (N = 68) were cut into 2.54 cm thick chops and allocated to cooking loss, Warner–Bratzler shear force (WBSF), pH and instrumental cooked color analysis. Cooking losses were greater (p < 0.0001) for SM and chops cooked to an internal temperature of 73 °C (p < 0.0001), whereas WBSF did not differ (p = 0.2509) among the three muscles, but was greater (p < 0.0001) in chops cooked to 73 °C. Fresh muscle’s pH was greater (p < 0.05) in ST than BF or SM. Lastly, the interactive effect (p < 0.05) of muscle × endpoint temperature for ST chops cooked to 73 °C was lighter (L*), but, when cooked to 62 °C, they were more red (a*), more yellow (b*) and incurred less color change from red to brown than BF or SM. The current results suggest it is plausible for BF, SM and ST to be considered for alternative uses instead of traditional value-added manufacturing.

Fresh beef storage in the retail setting can be presented in a variety of packaging methods, and identifying an alternative such as vacuum packaging to current traditional methods could potentially increase shelf life and reduce meat waste. The objective of this study was to identify the influence of packaging film and lean trimming sources on fresh ground beef surface color during a simulated retail display period. There were no differences (p > 0.05) in surface color redness (a*), yellowness (b*), chroma, or hue angle regardless of packaging film or lean trimmings. However, thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) were greater (p < 0.05) for packages containing a greater percentage of CULL beef trimmings regardless of packaging film. In addition, pH values of ground beef packages did not differ (p > 0.05) among packaging film or lean trimming blends. Visual color did not differ (p > 0.05) throughout the simulated retail display period regardless of beef trimmings or packaging film. Microbial spoilage organisms were greater (p < 0.05) after the simulated display period. These results suggest that ground beef presented in a simulated retail setting using an alternative packaging platform, such as vacuum packaging, is plausible.