DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

United States beef quality as chronicled by the National Beef Quality Audits, Beef Consumer Satisfaction Projects, and National Beef Tenderness Surveys - A review

  • Gonzalez, John Michael ;
  • Phelps, Kelsey Jean
  • Received : 2018.03.14
  • Accepted : 2018.05.19
  • Published : 2018.07.01

Abstract

Meat quality is a very difficult term to define because it means different things to different people. When purchasing beef, consumers in the United States are likely to consider color, price, marbling level, subcutaneous fat trim, or cut thickness when determining the quality of beef. Once consumers have consumed the product, meat quality becomes exponentially more difficult to define due to the subjective nature of this term. Traditionally, tenderness, juiciness, and flavor have been considered the three most important factors that determine the palatability of beef. Therefore, American meat science beef research and industry focus has turned to measuring and quantifying these 3 attributes objectively and subjectively, and to determining what influences them. In reviewing the scientific literature, attempting to meaningfully summarize the findings of the thousands of studies on beef meat quality is impossible due to the inherent differences in the objective and methodology of studies. Fortunately, the United States beef industry and their national trade association, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association (NCBA), have conducted numerous surveys and audits to characterize the quality of the products being produced and marketed by their cattlemen and the palatability perceptions of their consumers. The data produced by these studies is quite large and impossible to summarize in entirety in this review. Therefore, this review concentrates on the most important attributes that determine the value of a beef carcass and objectively measured and consumer-assessed palatability characteristics of fresh meat from these carcasses from 1987 through 2010.

Keywords

Beef;Palatability;Quality;Surveys;Tenderness

References

  1. Aberle ED, Forrest JC, Gerrard DE, Mills EW. Principles of meat science. 4th ed. Dubuque, IA, USA: Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co; 2003.
  2. USDA. Grades of fed beef carcasses. Agricultural Marketing Service. Marketing Res. Rep. Washington, DC, USA: United States Department of Agriculture; 1974. Report No.: 1073.
  3. Lorenzen CL, Hale DS, Griffin DB, et al. National Beef Quality Audit: survey of producer-related defects and carcass quality and quantity attributes. J Anim Sci 1993;71:1495-502. https://doi.org/10.2527/1993.7161495x
  4. Boleman SL, Boleman SJ, Morgan WW, et al. National Beef Quality Audit-1995: survey of producer-related defects and carcass quality and quantity attributes. J Anim Sci 1998;76:96-103. https://doi.org/10.2527/1998.76196x
  5. McKenna DR, Roebert DL, Bates PK, et al. National Beef Quality Audit-2000: survey of targeted cattle and carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. J Anim Sci 2002;80:1212-22. https://doi.org/10.2527/2002.8051212x
  6. Garcia LG, Nicholson KL, Hoffman TW, et al. National Beef Quality Audit-2005: survey of targeted cattle and carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, and value of fed steers and heifers. J Anim Sci 2008;86:3533-43. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2007-0782
  7. Moore MC, Gray GD, Hale DS, et al. National Beef Quality Audit-2011: in-plant survey of targeted carcass characteristics related to quality, quantity, value, and marketing of fed steers and heifers. J Anim Sci 2012;90:5143-51. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-5550
  8. Savell JW, Branson RE, Cross HR, et al. National Consumer Beef Retail Beef Study: palatability evaluations of beef loin steaks that differed in marbling. J Food Sci 1987;52:517-9. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1987.tb06664.x
  9. Savell JW, Cross HR, Francis JJ, et al National Consumer Retail Survey: interaction of trim level, price and grade on consumer acceptance of beef steaks and roasts. J Food Qual 1989;12:251-74. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4557.1989.tb00328.x
  10. Neely TR, Lorenzen CL, Miller RK, et al. Beef customer satisfaction: role of cut, USDA quality grade, and city on in-home consumer ratings. J Anim Sci 1998;76:1027-32. https://doi.org/10.2527/1998.7641027x
  11. Brooks JC, Belew JB, Griffin DB, et al. Nationa beef tenderness survey-1998. J Anim Sci 2000;78:1852-60. https://doi.org/10.2527/2000.7871852x
  12. Voges KL, Mason CL, Brooks JC, et al. National Beef Tenderness Survey - 2006: assessment of Warner-Bratzler shear and sensory panel ratings for beef from US retail and food service establishments. Meat Sci 2007;77:357-64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.03.024
  13. Guelker MR, Haneklaus AN, Brooks JC, et al. National Beef Tenderness Survey - 2010: Warner-Bratzler shear force values and sensory panel ratings for beef steaks from United States and food service establishments. J Anim Sci 2013;91:1005-14. https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-5785
  14. USDA. Official United States standards for grades of carcass beef. Washington, DC, USA: Livestock Seed Program Agricultural Marketing Service; 1997.
  15. Morgan JB, Savell JW, Hale DS, et al. National beef tenderness survey. J Anim Sci 1991;69:3274-83. https://doi.org/10.2527/1991.6983274x
  16. George MH, Tatum JD, Belk KE, Smith GC. An audit of retail beef loin steak tenderness conducted in eight U.S. cities. J Anim Sci 1999;77:1735-41. https://doi.org/10.2527/1999.7771735x
  17. Lorenzen CL, Weatherly BH, Savell JW. Determination of an aging index. College Station, TX, USA: A final report to the Texas Beef Council, Austin, from the Meat Science Section, Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University; 1998.
  18. Standard specification for tenderness marketing claims associated with meat cuts derived from beef [Internet]. Washington, DC, USA: ASTM International; 2011 [cited 2017 Sept 16]. Available from: https://compass.astm.org/EDIT/html_annot.cgi?F2925+11
  19. Ngapo TM, Martin JF, Dransfield E. International preferences for pork appearance: II. Factors influencing consumer choice. Food Qual Prefer 2007;18:139-51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodqual.2005.09.007
  20. Frank D, Joo ST, Warner R. Consumer acceptability of intramuscular fat. Korean J Food Sci Anim Resour 2016;36:699-708. https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2016.36.6.699