2004
DOI: 10.2527/2004.82113294x
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Consumer sensory acceptance and value for beef steaks of similar tenderness, but differing in marbling level1

Abstract: ABSTRACT:To determine consumer sensory acceptance and value of beef steaks differing in marbling level (high = upper ²⁄₃ USDA Choice and low = USDA Select), but similar in Warner-Bratzler shear value, consumers in Chicago and San Francisco (n = 124 per city) evaluated two matched pairs of high-and lowmarbled strip steaks, and had the opportunity to participate in a silent, sealed-bid auction to purchase steaks from the same strip loins as the samples. Consumers who purchased steaks also evaluated the steaks wh… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

4
67
0
1

Year Published

2006
2006
2019
2019

Publication Types

Select...
6
3

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 109 publications
(72 citation statements)
references
References 12 publications
4
67
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Moreover, no differences Table 4 Pearson's correlation coefficients between IMF (g/100 g of fresh muscle), major FA (mg/100 g of fresh muscle), shear force (WBSF, kg), CL (%) and sensory panel scores in Ll and St muscles from AL and BA bulls fed on LF or HF Effects of forage level on beef quality were found for the WBSF value and no significant correlation was recorded between tenderness scores and the WBSF value. Despite being the muscle studied in the vast majority of beef palatability research (Wheeler et al, 1997;Killinger et al, 2004;Dikeman et al, 2005;Wheeler et al, 2005;Smith et al, 2008), mainly due to its economical relevance and easy access, our study confirms that the results obtained for longissimus muscle cannot be extrapolated to the rest of the meat cuts/ muscles. Tenderness and tenderness-related traits are highly variable within and among beef muscles.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 66%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Moreover, no differences Table 4 Pearson's correlation coefficients between IMF (g/100 g of fresh muscle), major FA (mg/100 g of fresh muscle), shear force (WBSF, kg), CL (%) and sensory panel scores in Ll and St muscles from AL and BA bulls fed on LF or HF Effects of forage level on beef quality were found for the WBSF value and no significant correlation was recorded between tenderness scores and the WBSF value. Despite being the muscle studied in the vast majority of beef palatability research (Wheeler et al, 1997;Killinger et al, 2004;Dikeman et al, 2005;Wheeler et al, 2005;Smith et al, 2008), mainly due to its economical relevance and easy access, our study confirms that the results obtained for longissimus muscle cannot be extrapolated to the rest of the meat cuts/ muscles. Tenderness and tenderness-related traits are highly variable within and among beef muscles.…”
Section: Discussionsupporting
confidence: 66%
“…Although many factors can influence these attributes, the level of IMF plays a crucial role (Killinger et al, 2004;Hocquette et al, 2010). Fat content and composition have been shown to affect meat palatability, including flavour (as reviewed by Calkins and Hodgen, 2007).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Flavor differences could possibly be due to greater fat content (1.35%) of the wet-aged samples (Table 2). However, Killinger et al (2004) reported flavor differences of a similar magnitude when marbling differed by 2 full marbling scores (slight vs. modest or greater). The differences in intramuscular fat reported here, though significant, are unlikely to be of sufficient magnitude to cause the flavor differences.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Juiciness has been found to be highly correlated (r = 0.73-0.93) with consumer overall liking (Killinger et al, 2004;O'Quinn et al, 2012;Corbin et al, 2015). Many studies have attempted to use a variety of methods to objectively measure and quantify juiciness, though with limited success (Sanderson and Vail, 1963;Lee and Patel, 1984;Pearce et al, 2011).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%