Retail yields and palatability evaluations of individual muscles from wet-aged and dry-aged beef ribeyes and top sirloin butts that were merchandised innovatively

Smith, Amanda M.; Harris, K.B.; Griffin, D. B.; Miller, R. K.; Kerth, C. R.; Savell, J. W.

doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.12.013

Cited by 39 publications

(16 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, the consumers were unable to distinguish the variations in the sensory attributes in the meat produced by the two types of aging processes. In a similar study, Smith et al . (2014) compared the dry and wet aging for US Choice and US Select beef by assessing the retail cutting yield and consumer palatability evaluation during the 35 d of aging process.…”

Section: Comparison Of the Yield And Quality Traitsmentioning

confidence: 52%

Postmortem Aging of Beef with a Special Reference to the Dry Aging

Khan

Jung

Nam

et al. 2016

Korean Journal for Food Science of Animal Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Animal muscles are stored for specific period (aging) at refrigerated temperatures, during and after which the living muscles start to convert into meat and thus, attain certain superior properties in the final product. Proteolysis, lipolysis, and oxidation are the major biochemical processes involved during the postmortem aging of meat that affect the tenderness, juiciness, and flavor, as well as sometimes may introduce certain undesirable traits. This review analyzes the role of pre- and post-mortem factors that are important for aging and their effect on the chemical and physical changes in the “dry- and wet-aged meat.” Thus, if the meat processing manufacturers optimize the effects of aging for specific muscles, the palatability, color, and the shelf life of the aged meat products could be significantly enhanced.

show abstract

Section: Comparison Of the Yield And Quality Traitsmentioning

confidence: 52%

Postmortem Aging of Beef with a Special Reference to the Dry Aging

Khan

Jung

Nam

et al. 2016

Korean Journal for Food Science of Animal Resources

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Dashdorj et al (2016) determined the storage losses of dry aged beef as −10% (21 days), −15% (30 days), −23% (50 days), and −35% (120 days). Smith et al (2014) also reported that trimming losses increased dramatically with aging time. Herein, the storage loss of all dry aged beef samples increased significantly (p<0.05) with aging time.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 94%

Determination of Indicators for Dry Aged Beef Quality

Lee¹,

Jang²,

Park³

et al. 2019

Food Sci Anim Resour

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies on dry aged beef, which substantially increases the value of low-grade raw beef and non-preferred cuts, are currently limited to the observation of aged beef changes in laboratory settings or under particular aging conditions, whereas the factors influencing aging have so far been underexplored. Herein, we attempt to establish a technique for distinguishing between fresh and aged beef by observing changes in quality during beef aging. Specifically, we analyzed the effect of time on the quality of aged beef sourced from three Korean manufacturers and identified quality indicators that can be used to distinguish between fresh and aged beef, regardless of supplier. Storage/trimming/aging/cooking losses, moisture/fat/protein/collagen contents, and water holding capacity were tested as potential indicators, among other parameters. As a result, the quality of dry aged beef was shown to be supplier-dependent, which made the identification of factors for the above origin-independent discrimination difficult. Nevertheless, as storage loss, water holding capacity, and cooking loss significantly changed with dry aging time in all cases, these parameters were concluded to be potentially suited for discrimination purposes. The insights gained in this work may help promoting further research in this field and contribute to the development of a standard for consistent aged beef production.

show abstract

“…muscle, intramuscular fat and carcass quality (Smith et al, 2014, Iida et al, 2016, Lepper-Blilie et al, 2016. Also, the use of different sensory protocols may have contributed to differences reported.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%