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.
The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of providinginformation about the fat content, primal source, and price on consumers’palatability ratings of ground beef from the same source. 80% lean / 20% fatground beef chubs (n = 15 / panel type) were obtained, and 151.4 gpatties were manufactured from the chubs. Chubs were assigned randomly topanels for one of three different panel types. The fat content panels hadsamples labeled as: 90% lean / 10% fat (90/10), 80% lean / 20% fat (80/20), 73%lean / 27% fat (73/27), lean and extra lean. Price point samples were assignedto one of five different points: ultra-high, high, medium, low, and ultra-low. Primalpanel samples were labeled as: ground chuck, ground round, ground sirloin, andstore ground. Each panel had one sample with no information given (NONE). Sampleswere evaluated by consumers (N = 305), who were informed of thetreatment prior to evaluation for tenderness, juiciness, flavor, texture,overall liking, and purchasing intent, and rated each trait as acceptable orunacceptable. Labeling ground beef as 90/10, 80/20, and 73/27 resulted inincreased (P < 0.05) consumer ratings for tenderness, flavor, andoverall liking. Informing consumers of the price of the product resulted inincreases (P < 0.05) for all palatability traits for samples labeled withultra-high, high, medium, and ultra-low prices. Furthermore, attaching a primalblend label to the samples resulted in an increase (P < 0.05) for allthe palatability traits evaluated for all four primal blend types.Additionally, purchasing intent was increased (P < 0.05) for sampleswhen consumers were informed of the price and primal blend. Ultimately,providing consumers with information about the fat content, price, and primalblend type influences their perceived palatability of ground beef.
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.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.