NATIONAL BEEF TENDERNESS SURVEY

Transcription

1 NATIONAL BEEF TENDERNESS SURVEY J. B. Morgan, J. W. Savell, D. S. Hale, R. K. Miller, D. B. Griffin, H. R. Cross and S. D. Shackelford Texas A&M University2, College Station ABSTRACT To determine the average tenderness and sensory ratings of beef subprimal cuts sold in retail cases across the United States, retail cuts were purchased through typical retail outlets in 14 metropolitan cities and transported to Texas A&M University for sensory and Warner-Bratzler shear analysis. Ihe overall mean shear force for all cuts was 3.65 kg, and the mean shear force values for chuck, rib, loin, and round cuts were 3.72, 3.36, 3.17, and 4.31 kg, respectively. No difference (P >.05) in tenderness was detected among the cuts from the rib. Mean palatability ratings and shear force values of top loin steaks were similar to those of rib cuts. Top sirloin steaks were tougher (P <.05) and received the lowest sensory ratings compared with other loin cuts. Approximately two to three times as many round and chuck steaks had shear force values in excess of 4.6 kg compared with their roast counterparts. In all cases, roasts tended to be more tender than steaks from the same subprimal source. USDA Choice chuck retail cuts, compared to Select and Nwroll chuck cuts, had approximately 10% fewer cuts with shear force values in excess of 4.0 kg. More work is needed to improve meat tenderness, primarily for retail cuts from the round and chuck primals. Future research must investigate the interaction of antemortem and postmortem factors associated with variation in beef tenderness. Key Words: Beef, Palatability, Tenderness, Sensory Evaluation, Market Surveys Introduction In recent years, economic pressures have challenged the livestock and meat industries to seek ways of producing meat products that will enable consumers to receive maximum palatability benefits at the lowest costs. Factors such as meat color, flavor, aroma, tenderness, and method of cookery play a collective role in meat taste, and, more importantly, in con- ltecbnical Article from the Texas Agric. Exp. Sta. This study was mpported, in part, by the Cattlemen s Beef Promotion and Res. Board through the National Cattlemen s Foundation, Englewood, CO. Mention of a trade name. product or specific equipment does not constitute a guarantee or warranty of the product by Texas A&M Univ. and does not imply approval to the exclusion of other products that may also be suitable. The authors wish to thank the retailers who allowed us to survey their stores and Pansy Gilmore for her expert assistance in obtaining the sensory and shear forcc information. 2-t. of ~nim. sci. Received November 15, Accepted February J. Anim. Sci : sumer acceptance. The National Consumer Retail Beef Study (Savell et al, 1987, 1989) clearly revealed the importance of taste to the consumer in the purchasing decision process. This, and other studies, have revealed that tenderness or meat texture is the single most important factor affecting taste or consumers perception of taste. Many meat retailers, however, indicate that they seldom receive complaints about taste from consumers. Does this mean that tenderness is not a problem at the retail Tevel, or that consumers don t return tough meat for replace ment and(or) perhaps will not return for future business? Before the beef industry and academic institutions spend significant resources to address this problem, the magnitude of the problem should be measured. This study was undertaken to determine and compare the average sensory panel tenderness scores and Warner-Bratzler shear force values from a representative cross-section of U.S. retail cuts varying in USDA quality grade and subprimal source.

2 BEEF TE"EsS SURVEY 3275 TABLE 1. REGIONS OF THE UNITED STATES WITH THE CITIES CHOSEN TO CONDUCT THE SURVEY Regions Northeast-East Sontheast Northcentral Southcentral Mountain West New York AtlUlta chicago Dallas Denver Los Angeles Philadelphia Tampa Detroit Houston Seattle Baltimore Kansas City San Francisco Materials and Methods City and Retail Chain Selection Fourteen cities were selected to allow sampling in various geographical regions of the United States: Northeast/East, Southeast, North Central, South Central, Mountain, and West. Selected cities (Table 1) represented some of the largest Standard Metropolitan Statistical Areas based on both population and grocery store sales (Supermarket News, 1987). Additionally, many of these cities were used in the National Beef Market Basket Survey (Savell et al., 1991) and in the National Consumer Retail Beef Study (Savell et al., 1989). Two or three retail chains per city were selected; the chains represented at least one third of the total volume of supermarket sales in that city. Four stores per chain were chosen so that a total of 8 to 12 supermarket stores per metropolitan area were sampled. Retail cut and supermarket selection was accomplished randomly within each city and purchasing multiple retail cuts from the same subprimal cut within each store was avoided. Product Selection Retail cut samples, both roasts and steaks, from the major subprimals (bottom round, eye of round, top round, top sirloin, round tip, strip loin, ribeye, chuck tender, chuck blade, and arm section) were selected and purchased from each fresh beef retail meat case (Table 2). Raw material fabrication code dates and sources (company name and establishment number) were obtained from available box and packaging materials. After purchase of the retail cuts, samples were transported on cold packs in insulated bags to the Texas A&M University, Meat Science Section Sensory Evaluation Testing Facility. Upon arrival at Texas A&M University, samples were stored (2 d or less) under reftigerated conditions (2'C) before they were cooked to reduce the effect of freezing on meat tenderness or shear values. Cooking Procedures Retail cuts were cooked individually using mocedures described by Jones (1988) for each 'cut (Table 2). The -following is^ a brief description of each cooking method used. TABLE 2. RETAIL CUTS SELECTED FROM MAJOR SUBPRIMALS AND COOKING MBTHOD USED Retailcutpurchased Cooking Subprimal (if available) method Blade section Blade roast Braise Blade steak Braise Chuck roll roast Braise Chuck roll steak Braise chackeyesteak Broil Top blade steak Braise Arm section Arm roast Braise Armsteak Braise Clod roast Braise Clod steak Braise Chuck tender Chuck ''mock'' tendex Braise steak Rib Ribeye steak Broil Ribsteak(b0nein) Broil Rib roast Roast strip loin strip steak Broil Tenderloin Tenderloin steak Broil Top sirloin butt TopsirloisteaJt Broil Round tip Round tip roast Roast Round tip steak Broil Bottomround Bottm round roast Roast Bottom round steak Braise Rump roast Roast Top round Top round roast (London Broil) Roast Toprodsteak Braise Eye of round Eyeofroundroast Roast Eye of round steak Braise

3 3276 MORGAN ET AL. TABLE 3. OVERALL POSTFABRICATION TIME POR PRIMAL CUTS STRATIPIFD ACROSS CITIES City City Chuck Rib Loin Round mean Houston Kansas City New York Dallas Los Angela Atlanta Denver Chicago Philadelphia Sau Rancisco Tampa Detroit Seattle Baltimore s National average, d Braising. Cuts were browned for 4 to 8 min (depending on cut size) in preheated (163'C) Farberwm Dutch Ovens3 placed on top of a conventional gas range. After browning, 90 to 180 ml of distilled water (depending on size of the cut) was added, the container was covered, and the cut was allowed to cook in a conventional gas oven (heated to 163'C) to a final internal temperature of 85'C. Broiling. Cuts were cooked on an electric Farberware --Hearth Broitefi to a final internal temperature of 65'C. Steaks were cooked to 35'C and then turned until the final temperature was attained. Roasting. Cuts were placed on wire racks (fat side up) and cooked in a conventional gas oven (preheated to 163.c) to a frnal internal temperature of WC. Smalldiameter, coppranstantan thermocouples were inserted into the geometric center of the cuts and iuternal temperature was monitored with an Omega temperature record&. Sensory Evaluation Approximately 25% of the cooked retail cuts were selected randomly for sensory evaluation. Retail cuts were cut into 3parberwarc Dutch-Ovens. Kidde. Inc., Bronx, NY. %arberware Open-Hearth Broilers, Model 350A, Kidde, Inc., Bronx, NY. 'Omega Digital ~orneteq Model 871& Omega.. lhgmcmg, Inc.. stamford CT. l-cm3 samples and evaluated, while warm, by a trained, eight-member Descriptive Attribute Panel (Cross et al., 1978) for juiciness, tenderness, flavor intensity, and ConneCtive tissue amount using 8-point scales (8 = extremely juicy, tender, flavorful, or none; 1 = extremely dry, tough, unflavorful, or abundant, respectively). Steaks for shear force determination were cooked as described and cooled for 2 h to room temperature (23'C). From each cut, approximately 10 cores 1.27 cm in diameter were removed parallel to the muscle fiber orientation and each core was sheared once with a Warner-Bratzler Shear machine. Shear force for each cut was recorded as the mean of the 10 cores. Statistical Analysis Means and SD were computed for all variables. Analysis of variance (Steel and Tome, 1980) was used to analyze dependent variables according to procedures outlined by SAS (1985). SignScant subclass differences were evaluated by comparison of least squares means (Montgomery, 1984). A predetermined level of significance (P <.05) was used for all comparisons and will be used for the remainder of the discussion. Frequency distribution data also were generated to reveal shear force value distributions within each primal cut and quality grade. Confidence intervals were constructed using methods described by Shackelford et al. (1991).

4 BEEF TENDERNESS SURVEY 3277 TABLE 4. LEAST SQUARES MeANS FOR SHEAR FORCE MEANS AND SENSORY ATTRIBUTES IN CHUCK RETAIL CUTS sensory panel ratingsb Shear force Myofibrillar Connective Overall Plsvor Retail cut N mean,e N Juiciness tenderness tissueamount tenderness intensity Arm mast ' C' 5.68* 6.68' 5.52d 5.29 Ann steak * ' 4.99' 5%' 4.91d 5.57d" clod roast d ' 6.01dc 6.M 5.97d" 5.54& clod steak " d 5.75' 6.73' 5.68& 5.45' Blade mast 41 3.sacd ' 5. e 6.lod 5.73& 5.46' Blade steak ' d 5.@ 6.d 5.11' 5.36' Chuck roll mast @ 6.25' 6.4@ 6.11' 5.7@ Chuck roll steak ' & 5.32' 5.76' 5.18' 5.46' Chuck eye steak ' ' 5.94* 6.81' 5.92& 5.66* Chucktendersteak 21 4.mCd ' 5.40C' 6.36& 5.31' 5.66* Top blade steak ' ' 6.19& 6.46& 6.11' 5.69& Residual SD Warner-Bratzler shear force d e e m made with cores 1.27 cm in diameter. bs = ExtremeIy juicy, extremely tender, no connective tissue, extremely tender, and extremely flavorfuz respectively; 1 = extremely dry, extremely tough, abundant amount of connective tissue, extremely tough, and extremely unflavorfnl respectively. c,4%eans that do not have a common superscript letter differ (P <.OS). Results and Dlscusslon Postfabrication Aging Times. Table 3 summarizes the time (d) for primal and subprimal cuts to arrive from the fabrication plants to the various retail outlets where they become available to the consumer. Aging, a method for tenderization of meat by storage at above freezing temperatures in vacuum bags, is very important to assure a tender, acceptable product (Davey et al., 1967). This "aging" time will be referred to as "postfabrication time" (PFT). Data from the present study suggest that the average PET for all cuts is approximately 17 d. The minimum F'FT was 3 d and the maximum PFT was 90 d; the majority fell between 10 and 30 d (data not in tabular form). Chuck cuts had the shortest average ITT (15 d) compared with other primals. Smith et al. (1978) stated that aging of U.S. Choice beef carcasses for 11 d will optimize tenderness, flavor, and overall palatability of the majority of the muscles in steaks and(or) roasts from the chuck, rib, loin, and round when such cuts are ultimately broiled or roasted. Most PPT in this survey were longer than 11 d; however, many changes in the meat industry have occurred that could influence the response of meat to postmortem aging. Tenderness and Palatability Characteristics of Chuck Cuts. Sensory panel ratings and Warner-Bratzler shear force means for chuck retail cuts are presented in Table 4. Chuck retail cuts exhibited an overall shear force mean of 3.72 kg. Roasts from the chuck tended to have higher, more desirable sensory ratings along with lower shear force values compared with their chuck steak counterparts. A possible explanation for this difference in tenderness is the longer cooking time required for thicker roast cuts. This would increase the opportunity for solubilization of collagen during thermal processing (Locker, 1977) and increase moisture content, which could influence the perceived tenderness rating by sensory panelists. Because of increased marketing of thinly cut steaks, shorter cooking times with more intensive heat could increase meat toughness and decrease consumer satisfaction. Top blade steaks had an overall shear force mean of 3.05 kg and were significantly more tender (P <.05) than the other chuck retail cuts. This steak cut was more tender and had sensory panel attributes that were Comparable to those of most of the chuck roast cuts. Tenderness and Palatability Characteristics of Rib and Loin Cuts. Shear force means of 3.36 and 3.17 kg were the average for rib and loin cuts, respectively. Warner-Bratzler shear force and palatability means are listed in Table 5. With the exception of rib roast juiciness scores, shear force and sensory attribute ratings were not affected (P >.05) by retail cut type within the primal rib. Mean palatability ratings

5 3278 MORGAN ET AL. TABLE 5. LEAST SQUARES MEANS FOR SHEAR FQRCE MEANS AND SENSORY ATTRIBUTES IN RIB AND LOIN RETAIL CUTS Sensorypanelratingsb shear force Myofibriuat Connective Overall Flavor Retail cut N m-w N Juiciness tenderness tissueamount tenderness intensity Ribeye steak @ ' 6.26' 7.d 6.25' 5.64' Rib steak @ 16 4.%' ' 5.71' Rib roast cd ? ' 6.53' 559' Top loin steak ' dc 6.46' 7.12d 6.41' 5.84& Top sirloin steak @ 31 4.%d 5.88' 6.53' 5.75' 5.79' Tenderloin steak ' ' 7.1p 7.55' 7.1p 6.w Residual SD I7 Warner-Bratzler shear force determinations made with cores 1.27 cm in diameter. bs = Extremely juicy, extremely tender, no connective tissue, extremely tender, and extremely flavorful, respectively, 1 = extremely dry. extremely tough. abundant amount of conuective tissue, extremely tough, and extremely unflavorful, respectively. c*4%- that do not have a common supexscript letter differ (P <.05). and shear force values of top loin steaks indicated palatability characteristics similar (P >.05) to those of rib cuts (Table 5). Top sirloin steaks were the toughest (P <.05) loin cut (3.56 kg), compared with 3.25 and 2.61 kg for top loin and tenderloin steaks, respectively. Mean myofibrillar tenderness, amount of de tectable connective tissue, and overall tenderness ratings of top sirloin steaks indicated lower palatability compared with other middle meat (rib and loin) cuts. These data are similar to previous research results that indicate that top sirloin steaks were less tender than top loin steaks (Savell et al., 1977, 1980; Wheeler et al., 1990). Tenderness and Palatability Characteristics of Round Curs. The overall shear force mean for round retail cuts was 4.31 kg (Table 6), approxjmately 12% tougher than the next toughest primal cut (chuck) (Table 7). Similar to chuck, round roasts tended to be more tender and juicier and have less detectable connective tissue than steaks from the round. As exhibited between steak and roast cuts from the chuck, round steak cuts were tougher and received lower sensory scores than round TABLE 6. LEAST SQUARES MEANS FOR SHEAR FORCE MEANS AND SENSORY AlTFUBUTES JN ROUND REiTAIL. CUTS sensory pagel ratiogsb shear force Myofibrillar Connective Overall Flavor Retail cut N meaekn' N Juiciness kndemess tissueamount tenderness intensitv Bottomroundroast ' ' 6.Wef ~~ 5.94d 5.73' ~ Bottomroundsteak & 17 3ac 5.05' 5.36' 4.7@ 5.7* Top round roast ' ' 5.72e 6.5 lde 5.6F 5.56d Top round steak ' ' 4.43' 5%' 4.33' 5.44' Eyeofroundroast ' 16 5.W 6.W' 6.65& 6.Pf 5.49 Eyeofroundsteak ' 5.osd 6.25' 5.Wd 5.31' Round tip toast 49 3J3f I5 5.19& 6.31f 6.81' 6.21f 5.52d Round tip steak ' d 5.61' 6.48& 5.55' 6.05' Rumproast ' ' 6.16ef 5.81' 5.72' 51.73~ Residual SD Wrmr-Bratzler shear forcc determinations madc with cores 1.27 an in diameter. bs = Extremely juicy, extremely tender, no connective tissue, extremely tender, and extremely flavorful, respactively; 1 = extrcmcly dry, extremely tough, abundant amount of connective tissue, extremely tough, and extremely unflavorful, respectively. c.4efmm that do not have a common superscript letter differ (P <.05).

6 BEEP TENDER NESS SURVEY 3279 roasts. These differences could be attributed to differences in cooking methods (braising vs roasting) and shorter cooking times, along with increased amounts of connective tissue de tected in the thinly cut steaks. Round tip roasts were more tender (P c.05) than other round cuts. Smith et al. (1978) concluded that the round tip (rectus femoris) was the most tender round muscle after 14 d of postmortem aging. Top round steaks were the toughest round cut, as evidenced by the highest shear force value (5.23 kg; P c.os) and lower palatability ratings (Table 6). Injluence of Quality Grade on Cooked Beef Tenderness. Many researchers have reported that tenderness, juiciness, and flavor increase with increasing degrees of marbling in a direct, linear relationship (McBee and Wiles, 1967; JeMings et al., 1978; Tatum et al., 1980; Doled et al., 1982), whereas others have Y r s u 3 f c I f P g L 5 c ta e I - 0. $ < Y CI) f g I U a R I I Percentage, % Figure 1. Shear force frequencies of chuck, rib/loio, and round retail cuts stratified across quality grade.

7 3280 MORGAN ET AL. TABLE 7. MEAN VALUES FOR WARNER-BRA ELBR SHEAR FORCE VALUES STRATIFJED ACCORDING TOPRIMALCUT Meen shear Primalcut N force,* SE.M.ob Chuck Rib d Loin Round b.ob.M Wamer-BratzIer shear determinations (kg) made with cores 1.27 an in diameter. b~c.dmeam that do not have a common superscript letter differ (P >.OS). reported very low or nonexistent associations (Carpenter et al., 1972; Parrish et al., 1973; Parrish, 1974; Dikeman and muse, 1975; Davis et al., 1979; Smith et al., 1984). In the present study, fquency distributions of shear force values from steaks and(or) roasts within each quality grade were constructed (Figwe 1). One must remember that these comparisons are not necessarily cause and effect relationships, because of large sources of variation by cattle types and source, different handling systems in the various fabrication facilities, and various postfabrication times for subprimals. However, this is a representative sample of meat in retail cases throughout the United States. Mean shear force differences seem to be small between chuck cuts from different quality grades; however, the fre- quency distribution of shear force values indicates approximately 10% more cuts from Select (24 of 58) and No-roll (36 of 87) grades requiring 4.0 kg of force or greater compared with Choice chuck cuts (70 of 220) (Figure 1). No-roll chuck shear force frequencies were more variable than those of Select and Choice grades. The inability to distinguish the frequency of Choice carcasses within No-roll or the exact quality definition of No-roll retail cuts could contribute to the variation in tenderness observed in No-roll. Because the No-roll classification could include some lower-yielding, but highquality, carcasses and(or) primals, the overall shear force mean could be lowered relative to that of Select cuts. No noticeable differences in shear values or variation in tenderness were observed between round cuts differing in quality grade. Smith et al. (1984) stated that marbling is of very limited value in explaining differences in sensory panel ratings of round steaks compared to loin and rib steaks. In the present study, USDA quality grade failed to control the variation in panel ratings or shear force values to the degree necessary to ensure consistent beef products to the consumer. Steps must be taken throughout the beef industry to address the palatability variation issue. Failure by the beef industry to set in place production and marketing systems that would monitor the critical control points needed to produce a highly uniform product has resulted in excessive variation in beef produced for a commodity market. TABLE 8. WARNER-BRATZLER SHEAR FORCE VALUE (kg) CONFIDENCE LEVELS AND OVERALL SENSORY PANEL RATING DISTRIBUTIONS FOR RIB AND LOIN CUTS Percentage of cuts outside each confidence level Percentage distrihtion of sensorytendemessratings Retail cut 50% 68%b < 5.v < 6.P Ribeye steak Rib steak O Rib roast Top loin steak Top sirloin steak Tenderloin steak Overall rib 8.0% 23.0% 32% 22.2% Overall loin 5.3% 17.5% 3.4% 24.7% u 50% = The perantage of cuts that have Wamer-BratAer shear values greater than 4.6 kg. These cuts would have a 50% chance of receiviog panel tendermss scores of slightly tough (4 on an &point scale) or lower. 68% = The percentage of cuts that have Waroer-BratzIer shear values greater than 3.9 kg. These cuts would have a 68% chance of receiving panel tenderness sco~es of slightly tough (4 on an &point scale) or lower. cpercentage of cuts wiving panel tenderness scores below slightly tendcr (5) and moderattly tender (6).

8 BEEF TENDERNESS SURVEY 3281 TABLE 9. WARNFR-BRATZLER SHEAR FORCE VALXJE (kg) C 0 c E LEVELS AND 0VERAJ-L SENSORY PANEL TEh DERNESS RATING DISTRIBUTIONS FOR CHUCK CUTS Retail cut Percentage of cuts outside each Confidence level percentage distribution of sensory tenderness ratings 50% 68%b < 5.v 6.V Arm roast Arm Steak Clod roast 8.o Clod steak Blade mast Blade steak Chuck roll roast Chuck roll steak Chuck eye steak Chuck tender steak O Top blade steak Overall chuck 15.3% 40.8% 19.9% 61.6% L 50% = Ihe pemtage of cuts that have Warner-Bratzler shear values greater than 4.6 kg. These cuts would have a 50% chance of receiving panel tenderness scores of slightly tough (4 on an 8-point scale) or lower. 68% = The percentage of cuts that have Warner-Brakler shear values greater than 3.9 kg. These cuts would have a 68% chance of receiving panel tenderness scores of slightly tough (4 on an 8-point scale) or lower. Percentage of cats receiving panel tenderness scores below slightly tender (5) and moderately tender (6). Relationship between Warner-Bratzler Shear Values and Tenderness Ratings. Shackelford et al. (1991) reported that Wmer- Bratzler shear force values of top loin steaks should not exceed 3.9 kg for a 68% confidence level (CL) or 4.6 kg for 50% CL to assure overall tenderness ratings of slightly tender or greater from a trained sensory panel. A single Warner-Bratzler shear force threshold cannot be applied to all types of retail cuts (round vs rib and loin) or consumer markets (retail vs foodservice). Because the overall shear force means of the steaks and roasts ftom the loin and rib primals were not different (P >.05; Table 7), and because of the inherent tenderness associated with these primals, the more critical (68%) CL was applied to both these primal cuts. Additionally, because of innovative fabrication procedures and aggressive merchandising of individual chuck muscles into cuts to be grilled or broiled, the same (68%) CL will be concentrated on when we address tenderness of chuck cuts. Approximately 23.0 and 17.5% of the retail cuts from the rib and loin, respectively, had shear force values greater than 3.9 kg (Table 8). Additionally, 22.2 and 24.7% of the rib and loin cuts received an overall sensory rating lower than moderately tender (6 on an 8-point scale). Five of the 14 cities surveyed contributed heavily to the cuts above the 68% CL (shear force value > 3.9 kg) and would have a greater chance of receiving an overall rating of slightly tough or tougher. Top sirloin steaks were similar to the ribeye and rib steaks in that approximately 25% of these cuts had shear force values exceeding the 68% CL of 3.9 kg (Table 8). However, over 50% of the top sirloin steaks received sensory tenderness scores below moderately tender, compared with only approximately 25% of the rib steaks receiving moderately tender ratings or lower. One possible explanation for this OcCulTence is the greater amount (P < -05) of sensory panel detectable connective tissue observed within top sirloin steaks (Table 5). Data in Table 9 include the Warner-Bratzler shear force CL and percentage frequency distributions of sensory tenderness ratings for chuck cuts. Depending on cut type, cooking method (grill or broil vs braise) and consuming audience, shear force CL could be used to address tenderness differences. For example, the 68% CL may be applied to the chuck eye, chuck tender, and top blade steaks that are marketed and cooked similarly to rib and loin cuts. Over 85% of the chuck retail cuts had shear force values below the 50% CL shear force limit. Fewer than 60% of the retail cuts from the chuck met the 68% CL. Several of the cuts that met the 50% CL, but were eliminated from the 68% CL, were steaks. Additionally, 25.0 to 47.1% of these thinner cuts received overall tenderness ratings below

9 3282 MORGAN ET AL. TABLE 10. WARNER-BRATLLER SHEAR FORCE VALUE CONFIDENCE LEVELS AND OVERALL SENSORY PANEL DERNESS RATING DISTRIBUTLONS FOR ROUND CUTS Retail cut Bottom round roast Bottom round steak Top round roast Top round steak Eye of round roast Eye of round steak Round tip roast Round tip steak Rump roast Overall round Percentage of cuts outside each confidence level 50%* 68dJ % 62.8% Percentage distribution of sensory tenderness ratings < 5.p c 6.p O % 69.7% & 50% = The percentage of cuts that have Warner-Bratzler shear values greater than 4.6 kg. These cuts would have a 50% chance of receiving panel tenderness scores of slightly tough (4 on an 6-point scale) or lower. b*68% = The percentage of cuts that have Warner-Bratzler shear values greater than 3.9 kg. These cuts would have a 68% chance of receiving panel tenderness scores of slightly tough (4 on an &point scale) or lower. Percentage of cuts receiving panel tenderness scores below slightly tender (5) and moderattly tender (6). slightly tender (Table 9). Some of the chuck steaks (chuck eye and top blade) received no overall tenderness ratings below slightly tender (5 on an 8-point scale). This is evidence that some of the chuck steaks that are marketed and fabricated as convenience, marinate and grill items can be successfully merchandised at the retail level. The 50% CL was applied to cuts from the round because of increased toughness and, possibly, because of lower consumer expectations for these cuts compared with cuts from other primals (P <.05; Table 8). Of the nine round retail cuts, eight had greater than 20% of their cuts with shear force values higher than 4.6 kg. These cuts would have a 50% chance of receiving a panel tenderness score of slightly tough or tougher. It should be noted that none of the round steak cuts was tenderized. Many of the round steak cuts displayed shear force values higher than 4.6 kg and received panel tenderness scores of slightly tough or tougher (Table 10). Round tip roasts were the most tender round cut and did not receive any panel tenderness ratings below slightly tender, and only 8.2% of the round tip roasts had shear force values greater than 4.6 kg. lmpllcatlons Shear force values indicate that a high percentage of retail cuts from the chuck and round would receive overall tenderness rating scores less than slightly tender. Continued work is needed on improving meat tenderness, primarily for retail cuts from the round and chuck Future research must incorporate the interaction of antemortem and postmortem factors associated with variation in beef tenderness. An eventual goal for all segments of the beef industry must be for 100% of all retail cuts to have acceptable overall tenderness ratings Within a 95% confidence level. Llterature Clted Carpenter, 2. L.. G. C. Smith and 0. D. Butler Assessment of beef tenderness with the houx Tenderometer. J. Food Sci. 37:126. Cross, H. R., R. Moen and M. S. SWield Training and testing of judges for sensory analysis of meat quality. Food Technol. 32:48. Davey. C. L.,H. Kuttel and K. V. Gilbert Shortening as a factor in meat aging. Food Technol Davis, G. W., G. C. Smith, Z. L. Carpenter, T. R. Dotson and H. R Cross Tendemess variations among beef steaks from carcasses of the same USDA quality grade. J. Anim. Sci Dikcman, M. E. and J. D. Crouse Chemical composition of carcasses from Hereford, Limousin and Simmental aossbrd cattle as related to growth and meat palatability. J. h. Sci. 40:463. Doled, H. G., G. C. Smith, J. W. Smell and 2. L. Carpenter Comparison of rmbcutaneous fat thiclmess, marbling and quality grade for predicting palatability of beef. J. Food Sci Jennings, T. G., B. W. Beny and A. L. Joseph Influence of fat thickness, marbling and length of aging on beef palatability and shelf-we characteristics. J. Anim. Sci. 46:658.

10 Jones, D. K ThC effect of surface and intermuscular fat tissue on beef. M.S. Thesis. Texas A&M Univ., College Station. Locker, R. H Meat tenderness and gap filaments. Meat Sci. 1:87. McBee, J. L., Jr. and I. A. Wiles. 1%7. Influence of marbling and carcass grade on the physical and chemical characteristics of beef. I. Anim. Sci Montgomery, D. C Design and Analysis of Experiments (2nd Ed.). John Wiley. New York. PsrriSh, F. C., Jr Relationship of marbling to meal tenderness. Roc. Meat Ind. Res. Cod p 117. Am. Meat Inst., Arlington, VA. Parrish, F. C., Jr., D. G. Olson, B. E. Miner and R. E. Rust Effect of degree of marbling and internal temperature of doneness on bed rib steaks. J. Ania~. Sci. 37~430. Savell, I. W., R. E. Branson. H. R. Cross, D. M. Stiffler, J. W. Wise, D. B. Griffin and G. C. Smith National Consumer Retail Beef Study: palatability evaluations of beef loin steaks that differed in *ling. J. Food Sci Savell, J. W., H. R. Cross, J. J. Francis, J. W. Wise. D. S. Hale, D. L. Wilkes and G. C. Smith National Consumer Retail Beef Study: Interaction of trim level, price and glade onconsmneracceptance of beef steak9 and roasts. I. Food Qual Savell, I. W., J. J. Harris, H. R. Cross, D. S. Hale and L. Beasley NationalBeefMarketBasket Survey. J. Anim. Sci Savell, I. W., G. C. Smith and Z. L. Carpenta Blade tenderization of four muscles from Unee weight-grade BEEF TENDERNESS SURVEY 3283 groups of beef. J. Food Sci Savell, J. W., G. C. Smith and D. L. Huffman Cutting yields and palatability traits of hand-cut or pressedcleaved, and fresh-chilled, crust-frozen or frozentempered beef subpn'lmais. J. Food Sci SAS SAS User's Guide: Statistics. SAS Inst., Inc., Gary, Nc. Shackelford, S. D., I. B. Morgan, J. W. Savell and H. R. Cross IdenMication of tttreshold levels for W-B&CX shear force in beef top loin s&. I. Muscle Foods (In press). Smith, G. C., 2. L. Carpenter, H. R. Cross. C. E. Mqhey, H. C. Abraham, J. W. Savell, G. W. Davis, B. W. Berry and F. C. parrish, Jr Relationship of USDA marbling pups to palatability of cooked beef. J. Food Qual. 7:289. Smith, G. C., G. R Culp and 2. L. Carpenter Postmortem aging of beef carcases. I. Food Sci Steel, RG.D. and I. H. Tonie Rinciples and Rocedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach (2nd Ed.). MCGraw-Hill Book CO., N~w Ymk. Supermarket News Supermarket News Distribution Shdy of Grocery Stons Sales. Fairchild publications, New York. Taturn, J. D., G. C. Smith, B. W. Berry, C. E. Murphey, F. L. willii and 2. L. carpenter carcass characteristics, time on feed and cooked beef palatability attributes. J. Anim. Sci. 50:833. Wheeler, T. L., R. K. Miller, I. W. Savell and H. R. Cross Palatability of chiljed and froozcn beef steaks. J. Food Sci