Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/ Translational Animal...arrow_drop_down
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
image/svg+xml art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos Open Access logo, converted into svg, designed by PLoS. This version with transparent background. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Open_Access_logo_PLoS_white.svg art designer at PLoS, modified by Wikipedia users Nina, Beao, JakobVoss, and AnonMoos http://www.plos.org/
PubMed Central
Article . 2018
License: CC BY NC
Data sources: PubMed Central
versions View all 2 versions
addClaim

Evaluation of the contribution of tenderness, juiciness, and flavor to the overall consumer beef eating experience.

Authors: O’Quinn, Travis G; Legako, J F; Brooks, J C; Miller, Mark F;

Evaluation of the contribution of tenderness, juiciness, and flavor to the overall consumer beef eating experience.

Abstract

The objectives of this study were to evaluate the contribution of tenderness, juiciness, and flavor to the overall consumer beef eating experience and to evaluate the risk of overall palatability failure due to the unacceptable level of one or more of these traits. Data from 11 previously conducted studies representing a wide range of treatments and levels of eating quality that included more than 1,500 beef samples and 1,800 consumers were compiled and analyzed for this study. Results of a multivariate regression indicated that tenderness, flavor, and juiciness accounted for 43.4%, 49.4%, and 7.4%, respectively, of overall palatability (P 0.99). Additionally, the odds of a steak being rated unacceptable overall when tenderness, juiciness, or flavor were rated unacceptable were 2.2 to 1 (69%), 1.9 to 1 (66%), and 3.3 to 1 (77%), respectively. This indicated overall palatability was 7.2, 6.5, and 12.3 times more likely to be rated unacceptable if tenderness, juiciness, or flavor, respectively, was also rated unacceptable. Additionally, the percentage of samples rated acceptable for each palatability trait increased (P < 0.05) as quality grade increased. More than 88% of USDA Prime samples were rated acceptable for each palatability trait, whereas only 74.8-77.3% of USDA Select samples were rated acceptable for each palatability trait. Marbling score accounted for 14-16% of the variation (P < 0.01) in consumer palatability scores for each trait and intramuscular fat percentage accounted for 17-21% of the variation in each trait (P < 0.01). Logistic equation models for the predicted probability of an acceptable rating for each palatability trait based on intramuscular fat percentage accounted for only a minimal amount of variation (P < 0.01; R 2 ≤ 0.09). Results of this study indicate the relative contribution of tenderness, juiciness, and flavor to overall beef palatability. They provide evidence that the failure of even a single palatability trait dramatically increases the likelihood of overall palatability failure, indicating that no single palatability trait is most important, as beef palatability is dependent upon the acceptance of all three traits: tenderness, juiciness, and flavor.

Related Organizations
Keywords

Meat Science

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    131
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 1%
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Top 10%
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Top 1%
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
131
Top 1%
Top 10%
Top 1%
Green
gold