View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 1.

Shear force and proximate composition for ground beef of differing brands, lean percentages, and subprimal sources

 
Treatment1 Shear force, kg Moisture, % Protein, % Fat, % Ash, %
90/10 ground beef 4.4a 70.3a 20.3ab 10.1c 1.0b
90/10 CAB2 ground sirloin 3.0c 69.4a 20.7a 8.7d 1.6a
80/20 ground beef 3.9b 64.8b 19.3bc 16.9b 0.9bc
80/20 ground chuck 3.9b 63.5b 19.1bc 17.0b 0.9b
80/20 CAB ground chuck 3.8b 63.5b 18.8c 17.2b 1.0b
73/27 CAB ground beef 3.2c 57.8c 18.4c 25.2a 0.7c
SEM3 0.1 0.8 0.5 0.3 0.1
P-value <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
a–dLeast squares means in the same column lacking a common superscript differ (P < 0.05).
1Treatment lean content presented as percent lean/percent fat.
2CAB = Certified Angus Beef.
3Pooled SE of the least squares means.



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 2.

Texture profile analysis1 results for ground beef treatments

 
Treatment2 Hardness Cohesiveness Springiness Gumminess Chewiness
90/10 ground beef 20.0a 32.6a 66.5c 6.5a 4.3a
90/10 CAB3 ground sirloin 18.9ab 32.5ab 69.2ab 6.2a 4.3a
80/20 ground beef 16.3c 31.3bc 64.8d 5.1b 3.3bc
80/20 ground chuck 16.9c 30.3cd 70.2a 5.2b 3.6b
80/20 CAB ground chuck 17.2bc 29.8d 68.2b 5.1b 3.5b
73/27 CAB ground beef 15.7c 30.0d 66.1cd 4.7b 3.1c
SEM4 0.7 <0.1 <0.1 0.3 0.2
P-value <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
a–dLeast squares means in the same column lacking a common superscript differ (P < 0.05).
1Texture profile methods described by Bourne (1978).
2Treatment lean content presented as percent lean/percent fat.
3CAB = Certified Angus Beef.
4Pooled SE of the least squares means.



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 3.

Demographic characteristics of consumers (n = 112) who participated in ground beef sensory panels

 
Characteristic Response Percentage of consumers
Sex Male 52.8
Female 47.2
Household size 1 person 9.9
2 people 31.5
3 people 17.1
4 people 19.8
5 people 13.5
6 people 1.8
Over 6 people 6.3
Marital status Single 29.6
Married 70.4
Age group Under 20 9.2
20–29 18.4
30–39 25.7
40–49 22.0
50–59 15.6
Over 60 9.2
Ethnic origin African American 1.8
Asian 3.7
Caucasian/white 90.8
Hispanic 3.7
Annual household income, $ 25,000 to 24,999 11.0
35,000 to 49,999 10.1
50,000 to 74,999 25.7
75,000 to 100,000 26.6
More than 100,000 26.6
Highest level of education completed Non–high school graduate 5.6
High school graduate 9.4
Some college/technical school 34.6
College graduate 29.0
Postgraduate 21.5
Weekly beef consumption 1 to 3 times 42.7
4 to 6 times 53.6
7 or more times 3.6
Most important palatability trait when eating beef Flavor 69.7
Juiciness 9.2
Tenderness 21.1
Meat product most preferred for flavor Beef 58.3
Chicken 14.8
Fish 0.9
Lamb 6.5
Pork 9.3
Shellfish 5.6
Turkey 2.8
Venison 1.9



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 4.

Fresh beef purchasing motivators of consumers (n = 112) who participated in consumer sensory panels

 
Characteristic Importance of trait1
Price 73.8a
Size, weight, and thickness 68.6ab
Steak color 67.0bc
Familiarity of cut 62.2bcd
USDA grade 62.1bcd
Marbling level 60.8cd
Nutrient content 55.5d
Country of origin 48.4e
Local 46.1e
Eating satisfaction claims (example: “Guaranteed Tender”) 46.0e
Animal welfare 43.5ef
Antibiotic use in the animal 43.3ef
Brand of product 42.6efg
Growth promotant use in the animal 37.9fg
Natural and organic claims 36.3g
SEM2 2.4
P-value <0.01
a–gLeast squares means lacking a common superscript differ (P < 0.05).
1Purchasing motivators: 0 = extremely unimportant and 100 = extremely important.
2Pooled SE of the least squares means.



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 5.

Consumer (n = 112) palatability ratings1 for blind and informed testing of ground beef patties

 
Treatment2 Tenderness Juiciness Flavor liking Texture liking Overall liking
Blind testing
90/10 ground beef 52.1b 45.7b 57.1 55.4 55.7
90/10 CAB3 ground sirloin 60.9a 47.2b 59.8 60.1 59.3
80/20 ground beef 61.8a 58.4a 60.8 59.3 61.7
80/20 ground chuck 61.6a 55.0a 61.2 58.7 59.5
80/20 CAB ground chuck 58.5a 52.4ab 54.0 57.4 57.0
73/27 CAB ground beef 62.2a 56.9a 57.3 56.5 58.8
SEM4 2.3 3.0 2.7 2.2 2.5
P-value 0.01 <0.01 0.25 0.62 0.56
Informed testing
90/10 ground beef 57.1c 51.6b 60.7b 57.7b 59.4b
90/10 CAB ground sirloin 71.2a 62.0a 72.5a 69.7a 72.2a
80/20 ground beef 61.4bc 62.2a 61.6b 58.5b 61.6b
80/20 ground chuck 60.1bc 56.8ab 58.9b 57.9b 59.8b
80/20 CAB ground chuck 61.7bc 58.7a 63.7b 60.1b 62.8b
73/27 CAB ground beef 64.1b 62.4a 59.4b 59.7b 59.7b
SEM4 2.3 2.3 2.2 1.8 1.9
P-value <0.01 0.01 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01
a–cLeast squares means in the same section (blind or informed) of the same column and lacking a common superscript differ (P < 0.05).
1Sensory scores: 0 = not tender/juicy, dislike flavor/texture/overall extremely; 50 = neither tough nor tender, dry nor juicy, or neither like or dislike flavor/texture/overall; and 100 = very tender/juicy, like flavor/texture/overall extremely.
2Treatment lean content presented as percent lean/percent fat.
3CAB = Certified Angus Beef.
4Pooled SE of the least squares means.



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 6.

Percentage of ground beef patties of varying treatments considered acceptable for tenderness, juiciness, flavor, tenderness, texture, and overall liking by consumers (n = 112)

 
Treatment1 Tenderness acceptability Juiciness acceptability Flavor acceptability Texture acceptability Overall liking acceptability
Blind testing
90/10 ground beef 72.7b 63.1b 76.0 80.5 74.1
90/10 CAB2 ground sirloin 87.3a 63.1b 77.8 79.6 81.4
80/20 ground beef 86.4a 78.7a 83.4 81.4 83.1
80/20 ground chuck 89.8a 77.4a 82.3 86.2 79.4
80/20 CAB ground chuck 85.3a 69.0ab 72.6 81.9 72.0
73/27 CAB ground beef 85.5a 80.5a 79.9 84.9 77.8
SEM3 4.3 5.4 5.4 4.8 5.0
P-value 0.02 0.01 0.41 0.77 0.35
Informed testing
90/10 ground beef 82.2c 64.6c 80.6 82.4c 81.4
90/10 CAB ground sirloin 95.7a 82.9ab 94.0 96.8a 94.9
80/20 ground beef 86.9bc 83.6ab 82.4 82.3c 82.5
80/20 ground chuck 87.7bc 77.3b 84.0 84.0c 86.9
80/20 CAB ground chuck 89.6abc 79.3b 86.0 89.3bc 87.9
73/27 CAB ground beef 93.9ab 90.0a 83.2 92.6ab 89.5
SEM3 4.1 4.6 4.2 4.5 4.3
P-value 0.03 <0.01 0.11 0.01 0.06
a–cLeast squares means in the same section (blind or informed) of the same column and lacking a common superscript differ (P < 0.05).
1Treatment lean content presented as percent lean/percent fat.
2CAB = Certified Angus Beef.
3SE (largest) of the least squares means.



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 7.

Percentage of ground beef patties of varying treatments categorized by perceived eating quality level by consumers (n = 112)

 
Treatment1 Unsatisfactory quality Everyday quality Better than everyday quality Premium quality
Blind testing
90/10 ground beef 20.0 50.0 22.7 6.2
90/10 CAB2 ground sirloin 16.4 45.5 32.7 4.6
80/20 commodity ground beef 14.5 49.1 20.0 14.4
80/20 commodity ground chuck 16.5 43.1 32.1 7.1
80/20 CAB ground chuck 20.2 47.7 22.9 7.9
73/27 CAB ground beef 14.5 46.4 31.8 6.2
SEM3 3.9 4.8 4.5 4.4
P-value 0.78 0.92 0.12 0.10
Informed testing
90/10 ground beef 17.0 40.3a 36.9b 6.2b
90/10 CAB ground sirloin 2.7 22.8b 51.4a 23.2a
80/20 ground beef 9.0 49.9a 34.6b 7.2b
80/20 ground chuck 10.9 49.9a 34.6b 5.4b
80/20 CAB ground chuck 9.9 46.7a 34.2b 9.8b
73/27 CAB ground beef 9.0 53.6a 29.1b 9.0b
SEM3 3.7 5.5 4.7 4.3
P-value 0.05 <0.01 0.03 <0.01
a,bLeast squares means in the same section (blind or informed) of the same column and lacking a common superscript differ (P < 0.05).
1Treatment lean content presented as percent lean/percent fat.
2CAB = Certified Angus Beef.
3SE (largest) of the least squares means.



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 8.

Pearson correlation coefficients among consumer panel sensory scores, proximate composition, and shear force of ground beef

 
Traits Tenderness Juiciness Flavor liking Texture liking Overall liking Shear force Moisture Protein Fat
Blind testing
Juiciness 0.62**
Flavor liking 0.56** 0.60**
Texture liking 0.58** 0.45** 0.71**
Overall liking 0.65** 0.67** 0.88** 0.81**
Shear force −0.20* −0.07 −0.02 −0.10 −0.08
Moisture −0.17 −0.29** 0.01 0.03 −0.07 0.24*
Protein −0.06 −0.01 0.01 −0.10 −0.01 0.21* 0.34**
Fat 0.18 0.32** −0.02 −0.02 0.07 −0.23* −0.83** −0.42**
Ash −0.06 −0.22* −0.02 0.05 −0.06 −0.19 0.39** 0.20 −0.55**
Informed testing
Juiciness 0.72**
Flavor liking 0.66** 0.59**
Texture liking 0.81** 0.59** 0.73**
Overall liking 0.78** 0.61** 0.85** 0.86**
Shear force −0.40** −0.29** −0.25* −0.32** −0.26*
Moisture 0.02 −0.26** 0.19 0.18 0.17
Protein −0.10 −0.11 0.11 0.03 0.14
Fat −0.05 0.19 −0.29** −0.25* −0.27**
Ash 0.15 −0.07 0.32** 0.37** 0.34**
*Correlation coefficient differs from 0 (P < 0.05).
**Correlation coefficient differs from 0 (P < 0.01).



View Full Table | Close Full ViewTable 9.

Pearson correlation coefficients among consumer panel sensory scores and texture profile analysis measurements

 
Trait Hardness Cohesiveness Springiness Gumminess Chewiness
Blind testing
Tenderness −0.31** −0.35** 0.15 −0.33** −0.29**
Juiciness −0.34** −0.48** −0.13 −0.40** −0.42**
Flavor liking −0.11 −0.09 0.04 −0.11 −0.10
Texture liking −0.08 −0.12 0.05 −0.08 −0.07
Overall liking −0.23 −0.22 0.00 −0.24* −0.23
Informed testing
Tenderness −0.13 0.00 0.04 −0.10 0.08
Juiciness −0.36** −0.24* −0.19 −0.35** −0.37**
Flavor liking 0.15 0.06 −0.01 0.14 0.14
Texture liking −0.02 0.03 0.07 0.00 0.03
Overall liking 0.01 0.06 0.05 0.03 0.05
*Correlation coefficient differs from 0 (P < 0.05).
**Correlation coefficient differs from 0 (P < 0.01).