Repeatability and Accuracy of the Pressed Juice Percentage Method at Sorting Steaks into Juiciness Categories

McKillip, K. V.; Wilfong, A. K.; Gonzalez, J. M.; Houser, T. A.; Unruh, John A.; Boyle, Elizabeth A. E.; O’Quinn, T. G.

doi:10.22175/mmb2017.07.0034

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The lower shear force and hardness values for the 3 GBA is in alignment with the lower tenderness values reported by sensory panelists, providing additional evidence of the softer texture of the GBA in comparison with the GB samples. Pressed Juice Percentage is an objective measure of juiciness that has previously been shown to be closely related to consumer juiciness scores (Lucherk et al, 2017;McKillip et al, 2017). In the current study, both the RGBA and TGBA had PJP values that were lower (P < 0.05) than all 3 GB treatments.…”

Section: Texture Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 45%

Quality of Plant-Based Ground Beef Alternatives in Comparison with Ground Beef of Various Fat Levels

Davis

Harr

Farmer

et al. 2021

Meat and Muscle Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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.

show abstract

Section: Texture Characteristicsmentioning

confidence: 45%

Quality of Plant-Based Ground Beef Alternatives in Comparison with Ground Beef of Various Fat Levels

Davis

Harr

Farmer

et al. 2021

Meat and Muscle Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This objective measurement of juiciness has been shown to be associated with consumer juiciness ratings (Lucherk et al, 2017;McKillip et al, 2017a), with moderate correlations (r = 0.45, r = 0.55, respectively) found in both studies. In our study, PJP had a similar relationship (r = 0.47) with consumer juiciness ratings, but failed to reveal differences among treatments related to marbling that were observed by our sensory panelists.…”

Section: Marbling and Degree Of Donenessmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…Interestingly, aside from cooking loss, cooked moisture and fat had the highest correlation to trained juiciness ratings, even more so than a method developed to measure beef strip steaks juiciness, PJP. Cooking loss has been shown to be moderately to highly negatively correlated to consumer (R = −0.76 and R = −0.51) and trained juiciness (R = −0.88 and R = −0.75) ratings (McKillip et al, 2017a;Lucherk et al, 2017, respectively), but has limited predictive power as it is most commonly measured and reported on the steaks evaluated by the sensory panelists. Our results are similar to these previous studies, as cooking loss had the highest correlation to consumer and trained sensory panel juiciness ratings.…”

Section: Fat Moisture and Their Relationships To Beef Palatabilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Evaluation of marbling and enhancement’s abilities to compensate for reduced beef palatability at elevated degrees of doneness1

Drey

Prill

Olson

et al. 2018

Journal of Animal Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The objectives of this study were to evaluate the extent marbling compensates for reduced beef palatability at elevated degrees of doneness and to determine the relationship of residual moisture and fat in cooked steaks to beef palatability, specifically beef juiciness. Paired strip loins (IMPS # 180) were collected to equally represent five quality treatments [Prime, Top Choice (modest and moderate marbling), Low Choice, Select, and Select Enhanced (110% of raw weight)]. Steaks were grouped into sets of three consecutively cut steaks and randomly assigned a degree of doneness (DOD): very-rare (VR; 55 °C), rare (R; 60 °C), medium-rare (MR; 63 °C), medium (M; 71 °C), well done (WD; 77 °C), or very well done (VWD; 82 °C). Samples were subjected to consumer and trained sensory evaluation, Warner-Braztler shear force (WBSF), slice shear force (SSF), pressed juice percentage (PJP) evaluation, and raw and cooked proximate analysis. There were no (P > 0.05) quality treatment × DOD interactions for consumer sensory ratings, indicating increased DOD had the same negative impact regardless of marbling level. There was a quality treatment × DOD interaction (P < 0.05) for the percentage of steaks rated acceptable by consumers for juiciness. Increased marbling modified the point in which steaks became unacceptable for juiciness. Similarly, there was a quality treatment × DOD interaction (P < 0.05) for trained juiciness ratings. When cooked to MR and lower, Prime was rated only 8% to 18% higher (P < 0.05) than Select for trained juiciness ratings, but was rated 38% to 123% higher (P < 0.05) than Select when cooked to M and higher. Besides cooking loss, combined cooked moisture and fat percentage was more highly associated (P < 0.01) to consumer juiciness (r = 0.69) and trained initial (r = 0.84) and sustained (r = 0.85) juiciness ratings than all other objective evaluations. Using regression analyses, cooked moisture and fat percentages, alone, were poor indicators of consumer and trained juiciness ratings. However, when combined, the regression equations explained 45%, 74%, and 69% of the variation in consumer, trained initial, and trained sustained juiciness ratings, respectively. These results indicate that increased marbling levels only offer "insurance" for juiciness of steaks that are cooked to high degrees of doneness, but not for other palatability traits. Additionally, cooked residual moisture and fat percentages, when combined, are a good indicator of sensory juiciness ratings.

show abstract

“…According to a National Beef Tenderness Survey conducted in the United States at the food service and retail level, over 94% of rib and loin beef were rated tender or very tender. Such a large proportion of tender beef has magnified the importance of juiciness and flavor to the consumer eating experience [ 142 ]. This is the reason why the importance of beef sensory traits has renewed attention from meat scientists in recent years.…”

Section: Main Methods For Measuring and Predicting Beef Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Consumer Perception of Beef Quality and How to Control, Improve and Predict It? Focus on Eating Quality

Liu

Ellies-Oury

Stoyanchev

et al. 2022

Foods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Quality refers to the characteristics of products that meet the demands and expectations of the end users. Beef quality is a convergence between product characteristics on one hand and consumers’ experiences and demands on the other. This paper reviews the formation of consumer beef quality perception, the main factors determining beef sensory quality, and how to measure and predict beef eating quality at scientific and industrial levels. Beef quality is of paramount importance to consumers since consumer perception of quality determines the decision to purchase and repeat the purchase. Consumer perception of beef quality undergoes a multi-step process at the time of purchase and consumption in order to achieve an overall value assessment. Beef quality perception is determined by a set of quality attributes, including intrinsic (appearance, safety, technological, sensory and nutritional characteristics, convenience) and extrinsic (price, image, livestock farming systems, commercial strategy, etc.) quality traits. The beef eating qualities that are the most valued by consumers are highly variable and depend mainly on the composition and characteristics of the original muscle and the post-mortem processes involved in the conversion of muscle into meat, the mechanisms of which are summarized in this review. Furthermore, in order to guarantee good quality beef for consumers in advance, the prediction of beef quality by combining different traits in scenarios where the animal, carcass, and muscle cuts can be evaluated is also discussed in the current review.

show abstract

Repeatability and Accuracy of the Pressed Juice Percentage Method at Sorting Steaks into Juiciness Categories

Cited by 8 publications

References 24 publications

Quality of Plant-Based Ground Beef Alternatives in Comparison with Ground Beef of Various Fat Levels

Quality of Plant-Based Ground Beef Alternatives in Comparison with Ground Beef of Various Fat Levels

Evaluation of marbling and enhancement’s abilities to compensate for reduced beef palatability at elevated degrees of doneness1

Consumer Perception of Beef Quality and How to Control, Improve and Predict It? Focus on Eating Quality

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About