Visual Degree of Doneness Impacts Beef Palatability for Consumers with Different Degree of Doneness Preferences

Abstract

The objective of this study was to determine the impact on beef palatability perceptions when consumers with varying degree of doneness (DOD) preferences are served steaks cooked to multiple DOD. Paired Low Choice strip loin steaks were randomly assigned to a DOD of either rare (60°C), medium-rare (63°C), medium (71°C), medium-well (74°C), or well-done (77°C). Consumer panelists were prescreened for DOD preference (rare, medium, or well-done) prior to sensory panels and were assigned to panels based on their DOD preference. In the first round of testing, consumers were served 1 sample from each of the 5 DOD under low-intensity red incandescent light to mask any DOD differences among samples. In round 2 of testing, consumers were fed the paired samples cooked to the same DOD under white incandescent lights. There were no (P > 0.05) consumer DOD preference × steak DOD interactions or consumer DOD preference effects for tenderness, juiciness, and flavor ratings when steaks were evaluated under both lighting types. Within the white-lighting testing, there was a consumer DOD preference × steak DOD interaction (P < 0.05) for overall acceptability. Consumers who preferred steaks cooked to well-done reported no differences (P > 0.05) in overall palatability among DOD under white-lighting, whereas consumers who preferred steaks cooked to rare and medium rated steaks lower (P < 0.05) for overall palatability as DOD increased. Regardless of DOD preference, consumer sensory ratings decreased (P < 0.05) when steaks were cooked above the consumer’s preferred DOD; whereas sensory ratings improved (P < 0.05) when steaks were served below the consumers’ preferences. These results indicate that overcooking steaks has the greatest negative impact on beef palatability perception and thus, foodservice should err on the side of undercooking steaks to preserve, and potentially improve, eating satisfaction.

Effects of increasing internal end‐point temperatures on physicochemical and sensory properties of meat: A review

“…This is supported by results from Prill, Drey, Olson, et al. (2019) who found that consumers who order their steaks well‐done, changed their score substantially based on the lighting scenario, indicating that the emotional disliking to the bloodlike appearance (of cooked meat exudate) plays a large role in consumer perception. These two studies can be related to Figure 2 and confirm how expectations and situational variables affect the consumption behaviors of consumers.…”

“…This is especially true for color evaluation by a trained panel. When sensory evaluation is conducted by a trained sensory panel, red filtered lights are commonly used to mask the color differences (Ares & Varela, 2017; Lucherk et al., 2016; Prill, Drey, Olson, et al., 2019).…”

“…The influence of the degree of doneness of meat on flavor is less clear in the published literature (Prill, Drey, Olson, et al., 2019). With hedonic sensory evaluation, many authors concluded that there were no differences ( p > 0.05) found in the degree of liking of flavor between the different internal end‐point temperatures (ranging from 55 to 82°C) (Akinwunmi et al., 1993; Lorenzen et al., 2005; Lucherk et al., 2016; Myers et al., 2009).…”

“…(2017), and Prill, Drey, Olson, et al. (2019) found that higher internal cooking end‐point temperatures resulted in less juicy and thus drier steaks. Lorenzen et al.…”

Biology, strategies, and fresh meat consequences of manipulating the fatty acid composition of meat

“…In consumer research conducted at Kansas State University, participating consumers are commonly asked about their purchasing motivators. These research studies indicated midwestern consumers placed the importance of the nutritive value of meat from 52 to 55 on a 100-point scale with 100 designated as being extremely important (Wilfong et al, 2016a(Wilfong et al, , 2016bVierck et al, 2018;Olson et al, 2019;Prill et al, 2019). In Europe, Wezemael et al (2014) reported consumers valued meat nutritional claims based on country.…”