Cooking surface temperatures, steak thickness, and quality grade effects on volatile aroma compounds

Beef flavor attributes were evaluated in USDA TopChoice and Select beef top loin steaks cut 1.3 cm (THIN) or 3.8 cm (THICK) andcooked on a commercial flat top grill at 177˚C (LOW) or 232˚C (HIGH) grillsurface temperature. Gas chromatography/mass spectrophotometry, was used toevaluate volatile aroma compounds.  USDASelect steaks had more 2-octene and less trimethyl pyrazine in (P<0.05) THINsteaks than THICK steaks, while Choice was unaffected by steak thickness(P>0.05).  Benzene acetaldehyde washigher and 4-hydroxybenzoic acid was higher in Select LOW grill temperaturescompared to Select HIGH grill temperatures, while 5-methyl-2-furancarboxaldehyde was only present in Choice HIGH grill temperatures (P<0.05).Two acid, three alcohol, one aldehyde, one alkane, and one ketone volatilearoma compounds were higher (P<0.05) for LOW compared to HIGH.  Conversely, five alcohols, two aldehyde, twoalkane, all four furans, six ketones, four pyrazines, along with 1H-indole, twopyrroles, two pyridines, and one benzene aroma compounds were higher (P<0.05)in HIGH compared to LOW.  Additionally,one alcohol, two aldehydes, one ketones, one sulfur-containing, and six othervolatile compounds were lower, while one acid, one alcohol, one aldehyde, twofurans, one ketone, three pyrazine, one sulfur-containing, and one othervolatile compounds were higher in the THIN compared to THICK.  Some aroma compounds like 2-butanone,4-methyl-2-pentanone, 1-ethyl-1H-pyrrole, 1-methyl-1H-pyrrole, and2-methyl-pyridine were only present in THICK cooked HIGH (P<0.05). Steakthickness and grill time are important factors to consider in the developmentof positive Maillard reaction products.@font-face{font-family:"Cambria Math";panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;mso-font-charset:0;mso-generic-font-family:roman;mso-font-pitch:variable;mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}@font-face{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;mso-font-charset:0;mso-generic-font-family:swiss;mso-font-pitch:variable;mso-font-signature:-536859905 -1073732485 9 0 511 0;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal{mso-style-unhide:no;mso-style-qformat:yes;mso-style-parent:"";margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}.MsoChpDefault{mso-style-type:export-only;mso-default-props:yes;font-family:"Calibri",sans-serif;mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:Calibri;mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}div.WordSection1{page:WordSection1;}@font-face{font-family:"MS Mincho";panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;mso-font-alt:"ＭＳ 明朝";mso-font-charset:128;mso-generic-font-family:modern;mso-font-pitch:fixed;mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 134217746 0 131231 0;}@font-face{font-family:"Cambria Math";panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;mso-font-charset:0;mso-generic-font-family:roman;mso-font-pitch:variable;mso-font-signature:-536870145 1107305727 0 0 415 0;}@font-face{font-family:Calibri;panose-1:2 15 5 2 2 2 4 3 2 4;mso-font-charset:0;mso-generic-font-family:swiss;mso-font-pitch:variable;mso-font-signature:-536859905 -1073732485 9 0 511 0;}@font-face{font-family:Cambria;panose-1:2 4 5 3 5 4 6 3 2 4;mso-font-charset:0;mso-generic-font-family:roman;mso-font-pitch:variable;mso-font-signature:-536870145 1073743103 0 0 415 0;}@font-face{font-family:"\@MS Mincho";panose-1:2 2 6 9 4 2 5 8 3 4;mso-font-charset:128;mso-generic-font-family:modern;mso-font-pitch:fixed;mso-font-signature:-536870145 1791491579 134217746 0 131231 0;}p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal{mso-style-unhide:no;mso-style-qformat:yes;mso-style-parent:"";margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Cambria",serif;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:"MS Mincho";mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}p.Major, li.Major, div.Major{mso-style-name:Major;mso-style-unhide:no;mso-style-qformat:yes;margin:0in;margin-bottom:.0001pt;text-align:center;line-height:200%;mso-pagination:widow-orphan;font-size:14.0pt;mso-bidi-font-size:12.0pt;font-family:"Times New Roman",serif;mso-fareast-font-family:"MS Mincho";mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;}.MsoChpDefault{mso-style-type:export-only;mso-default-props:yes;font-family:"Cambria",serif;mso-ascii-font-family:Cambria;mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-fareast-font-family:"MS Mincho";mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;mso-hansi-font-family:Cambria;mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;mso-bidi-font-family:"Times New Roman";mso-bidi-theme-font:minor-bidi;}div.WordSection1{page:WordSection1;}

2018 National Beef Flavor Audit: Consumer and Descriptive Sensory Attributes

Beef flavor has been identified as a driver of consumer acceptability; however,  little is known about variability of flavor in major retail beef cuts. Four beef cuts (chuck roast = 50, top sirloin steaks = 49, top loin steaks =50, and 80/20 ground beef = 50) were obtained from retail stores in Miami, Los Angeles, Portland, New York, and Denver during a two-month period in 2018. Beef present in the retail beef cases were purchased to be representative of consumer selections.  Production systems or package claims were documented.  Chuck roasts were oven roasted and top loin, top sirloin and ground beef (made into patties) were grilled to an internal temperature of 71˚C. An expert, trained flavor and texture descriptive attribute sensory panel evaluated beef flavors, aromas and textures and consumer sensory panels in Fort Collins CO and Lubbock TX evaluated beef for overall, overall flavor, beef flavor, grilled flavor, juiciness and texture liking.  Ground beef was more intense (P <0.0001) in brown, fat-like, green hay, and sour milk/sour dairy flavor aromatics; and salty and sweet basic taste than steak cuts. Additionally, ground beef patties had the lowest levels (P<0.0001) of bloody/serumy, metallic, and liver-like flavor aromatics. Chuck roasts had the lowest levels of (P<0.0001) beef flavor identity, brown, and roasted flavor aromatics, and salt and umami basic tastes. Sirloin steaks were lowest (P<0.0001) in fat-like flavor aromatics and most intense (P<0.0001) in burnt and cardboardy flavor aromatics; and bitter and sour basic tastes. Sirloin steaks and chuck roasts were more intense in metallic and liver-like (P<0.0001) flavor aromatics. Ground beef patties had a higher incidence of green hay-like.  Consumers rated chuck roasts lowest for overall, overall flavor, grilled flavor and juiciness liking (P<0.04).  Ground beef pattes and top loin steaks had the highest consumer texture liking (P<0.0002). Therefore, variation in beef flavor attributes were identified in retail beef cuts and ground beef.  Beef descriptive flavor and texture attributes were related to consumer liking and negative flavor aromatic attributes were identified.

Quality of plant-based ground beef alternatives in comparison to ground beef of various fat levels

The objective of this study was to compare the quality characteristics of current plant-based protein ground beef alternatives (GBA) to ground beef (GB) patties of varying fat percentages. Fifteen different production lots (n = 15 / fat level) of 1.36 kg GB chubs of three different fat levels (10%, 20%, and 27%) were collected from retail markets in the Manhattan, KS area. Additionally, GBA products including a foodservice GBA (FGBA), a retail GBA (RGBA), and a traditional soy-protein based GBA (TGBA) currently available through commercial channels were collected. Consumers (n = 120) evaluated sample appearance, juiciness, tenderness, overall flavor liking, beef flavor liking, texture liking, and overall liking. Additionally, samples were evaluated for color, texture profile, shear force, pressed juiciness percentage (PJP), pH, and fat and moisture percentage. All three GB samples rated higher (P < 0.05) than the three GBA samples for appearance liking, overall flavor liking, beef flavor liking, and overall liking by consumers. Similar results were found with trained sensory panelists, which rated the GBA as less (P < 0.05) juicy, softer (P < 0.05), and lower (P < 0.05) for beef flavor and odor intensity and higher (P < 0.05) for off-flavor intensity than the GB. Moreover, the GBA had less (P < 0.05) change in shape through cooking and a lower (P < 0.05) percentage of cooking loss and cooking time than the GB. Also, the GBA all had lower (P < 0.05) shear force and PJP values than the GB. The color of the GBA differed (P < 0.05) from the GB, with the GB samples being more (P < 0.05) red in the raw state. These results indicate that the GBA provide different eating and quality experiences than GB and should thus be considered as different products by consumers and retailers.

Physicochemical and Sensory Assessments in Spain and United States of PGI-Certified Ternera de Navarra vs. Certified Angus Beef

The physicochemical and sensory differences between the PGI-Certified Ternera de Navarra (CTNA) (Spanish origin) and Certified Angus Beef (CAB) (US origin) were assessed in Spain and the USA. To characterize the carcasses, the ribeye areas (REAs), and marbling levels were assessed in both testing places. Twenty striploins per certified beef program were used as study samples. For sensory analysis, the striploins were vacuum packaged and aged for 7 days at 4 °C and 85% RH in each corresponding laboratory. Thereafter, the samples were half cut and frozen. One of the halves was shipped to the other counterpart-testing place. The fat and moisture percentage content, Warner Bratzler Shear Force (WBSF), and total and soluble collagen were tested for all the samples. The CAB carcasses had smaller REAs (p < 0.0001) and exhibited higher marbling levels (p < 0.0001). The CAB striploins had a higher fat content (p < 0.0001) and required lower WBSF (p < 0.05) than the CTNA samples. Trained panelists rated the CAB samples as juicer (p < 0.001), more tender/less tough (p < 0.0001), and more flavorful (p < 0.0001) than the CTNA counterparts. This study shows that beef from both countries had medium-high tenderness, juiciness, and beef flavor scores and very low off-flavor scores. Relevant differences found between the ratings assigned by the Spanish and the US panelists suggest training differences, or difficulties encountered in using the appropriate terminology for defining each sensory attribute. Furthermore, the lack of product knowledge (i.e., consumption habits) may have been another reason for such differences, despite the blind sensory evaluation.

361 Beef flavor chemistry and how it influences sensory perception

Flavor can be simply defined as the combination of taste and aroma. Taste refers to the five basic receptors: sweet, salty, sour, bitter, and umami. Flavor is the perception of chemical compounds reacting with receptors in the oral and nasal cavities (aroma) in combination with taste. For beef, flavor is considered a primary eating quality trait. Flavor is developed during cooking through a combination of numerous chemical reactions, principally the Maillard reaction and oxidation of lipids. Any factor which mediates precursor compounds to these reactions may influence flavor chemistry and final perceived flavor. For the Maillard reaction, water-soluble compounds, such as free-amino acids and sugars, are essential and allow for the development of characteristic beef flavors. Likewise, oxidation of lipids, to a degree, provides beef -species-specific flavor. However, too much oxidation contributes to off-flavor. Both pre- and post-harvest factors may influence beef flavor precursor content and composition prior to cooking. Beef finishing diet is well understood to influence fatty acid composition. Meanwhile, carcass grade and muscle type each influence fatty acids. During post-mortem aging, free-amino acids and other metabolites accumulate in response to proteolysis. Recent work indicates that packaging type and retail environment also influence flavor precursor compounds. Finally, the aforementioned flavor pathways, lipid oxidation and the Maillard reaction, are initiated and accelerated during cooking. Therefore, degree-of-doneness and cookery type greatly influence beef flavor chemistry. These examples briefly depict how beef flavor chemistry may be influenced by common production factors, retail settings, and consumer preparation of beef. The resulting beef flavor dictates consumer liking of beef. Therefore, understanding beef flavor chemistry is integral to maintaining or increasing consumer satisfaction with beef.

360 Awardee Talk: The evolution of meat flavor measurement and its importance to the livestock industry

Meat flavor is part of the trilogy of traits that determine taste: tenderness, juiciness, and flavor. For meat, juiciness is influenced by the amount of intramuscular fat and moisture that is retained during the cooking process. Meat tenderness is primarily determined by the amount and type of connective tissue, degree of protein degradation, and muscle sarcomere length. Tenderness has been managed genetically in livestock, with significant strides being made to reduce the number of steaks rated tough. The last factor that influences consumers’ perception of meat taste is flavor and aroma. Compared to juiciness and tenderness, flavor is much more complex, as it is influenced by lipids and water-soluble compounds that serve as precursors to meat flavor. These precursors are then developed into flavor and aromas during the cooking process. Flavor is measured by consumers via sensing on the tongue, trigeminal senses, and volatile aroma compounds and is largely variable from one consumer to the next. Objectively measuring flavor is much more complicated than either juiciness or tenderness and requires either a highly-trained human sensory panel or expensive, highly-sensitive equipment. The development of the beef flavor lexicon in 2011 provided a comprehensive list of beef flavor descriptors with objective references for each and anchors along a scale of 0 to 15, allowing a trained sensory panel to objectively measure and score the flavor descriptors. Gas and liquid chromatography coupled with mass spectroscopy objectively measure volatile aroma compounds and flavor precursors, respectively. Now the use of “omics” techniques have been adapted to flavor research to help relate protein, lipids, and other metabolites with flavor characteristics. Meat flavor is what most appeals to consumers and sets it apart from plant proteins. Furthermore, flavor serves as the guardrails to keep a premium marketability on track and is something that the livestock industry has that makes their product unique and desirable.

Effects of Replacing Antibiotics in Finishing Cattle Diets with Plant-Based Additives on Meat Quality and Sensory Attributes

ObjectivesLimited research has investigated the effects of plant-based additives fed to feedlot cattle beyond cattle growth performance and carcass characteristics. Thus, the objective of this study was to investigate the effects of feeding antibiotic supplements versus essential oils and/or benzoic acid to finishing cattle on meat quality and sensory attributes of the longissimus thoracis (LT) muscle.Materials and MethodsCrossbred steers (N = 63) were placed into 3 blocks based on initial weight. Within each block, 1 of 5 treatments were randomly applied using an Insentec feeding system for 98 d: (1) control (CON) diet (no supplement); (2) monensin/tylosin (M/T) diet (monensin supplemented at 33 mg/kg on dry matter (DM) basis; tylosin supplemented at 11 mg/kg on DM basis); (3) essential oils (EO) diet (supplemented at 1.0 g/steer/day); (4) benzoic acid (BA) diet (supplemented at 0.5% on DM basis); and (5) combination (COMBO) diet (essential oils supplemented at 1.0 g/steer/day and benzoic acid supplemented at 0.5% on DM basis). Beef rib (IMPS#107) sections from the right side of carcasses were collected from a commercial processing facility and transported to the U of Guelph meat science laboratory and processed into 2.54 cm LT steaks. pH and objective color were collected for the LT steaks at 6 d post-mortem. Samples for cooking loss and shear force were aged for 7 d and 14 d post-mortem. Samples for sensory were aged for 7 d post-mortem. Duplicate 5 to 6 g homogeneously blended LT samples were analyzed for moisture content by forced-air convection oven drying at 100°C for 24 h (Method 950.46, AOAC. Lipid content of the dried samples were determined by Soxhlet extraction with petroleum ether, followed by 24 h of oven drying at 100°C. Cooking loss was measured after cooking samples to an internal temperature of 72°C. Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF) was measured on 1.3 cm diameter cores that were cut parallel to muscle fibers. Meat quality results were analyzed as a randomized complete block design (RCBD) with fixed effects of treatment, block and their interaction using PROC GLIMMIX of SAS. For sensory analysis, 8 highly trained panelists evaluated the tenderness, juiciness, chewiness, beef flavor intensity, and off-flavor intensity of steaks using a 15-cm line scale. Each steak was cooked to 68°C and served to each panelist as two 1-cm cubes. Results were analyzed as a RCBD with the fixed effects of treatment, panelist, and their interaction and the random effect of session.ResultsThere were no significant differences (P > 0.07) among treatments in this study for pH, objective color, % moisture, WBSF, or cooking loss of LT samples. Ribeye from the CON diet had significantly less % crude fat (P = 0.05) compared to other treatments. There was an effect of diet on the tenderness, chewiness, juiciness and beef flavor intensity of steaks as determined by the panelist. Specifically, CON and COMBO steaks were tougher, chewier and less juicy. All steaks had strong beef flavor, especially the BA steaks. Off-flavors were barely detectable.ConclusionResults showed that EO and BA when fed to finishing cattle do not affect meat quality. Trained panelists reported steaks in the M/T, EO, and BA diet were tender, juicier, and had stronger beef flavors. Potential off-flavors and off-aromas in finishing feed did not translate to beef products.

Retail Display Lighting and Packaging Type May Influence Beef Flavor and Oxidative Stability

ObjectivesThis study aimed to evaluate the impact of retail display lighting and packaging type on beef flavor and lipid oxidation in five muscles.Materials and MethodsSubprimals (n = 40 strip loins, 60 shoulder clods, 60 tenderloins, 24 inside rounds, 60 top butts) were randomly collected from separate carcasses. At 7d postmortem muscles (Longissimus lumborum, LL; Triceps brachii, TB; Psoas major, PM; Semimembranosus, SM; Gluteus medius, GM) were fabricated and sliced to 2.54cm steaks. Per muscle, 120 steaks were randomly assigned to packaging treatments: vacuum rollstock (ROLL); high-oxygen (80% O2/20% CO2; HIOX); overwrapped in a motherbag with carbon monoxide (0.4%CO/30%CO2/69.6%N2; CO); and traditional overwrap (OW), which was vacuum packaged until immediately prior to display. Packages were stored in the dark at 2°C an additional 13 d prior to retail display, then were displayed under fluorescent lights (FL) or light-emitting diodes (LED) with a third treatment in dark storage (DARK). All were held in their respective light treatments at 2°C for 72h, then assigned for trained panels or chemical analysis, vacuum packaged and frozen at –20°C. For sensory analysis steaks were thawed to 4°C and cooked to 71°C. Panelists (n = 8) were trained to evaluate twelve flavors, overall juiciness and tenderness, which were scored on a 100-point scale (0 = not present; 100 = extremely present). Lipid oxidation of raw steaks was quantified as 2-thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS; mg malondialdehyde (MDA)/kg beef).ResultsNo three-way interaction (P ≥ 0.10) or lighting effect (P ≥ 0.09) was observed for trained panels or TBARS. Cardboard flavor had a muscle×lighting interaction (P = 0.02). In GM, FL had greater (p < 0.05) cardboard than other lighting; in other muscle types lighting was similar. Muscle×packaging influenced three attributes (P ≤ 0.02). Steaks in ROLL were sweeter (p < 0.05) than other packaging in GM, PM and TB; ROLL was juicier (p < 0.05) than other packaging in GM, PM, and SM. Across all packaging types tenderness was greatest for PM, while SM was least tender (p < 0.05) in CO, HIOX and OW packaging. Packaging influenced nine flavors (P ≤ 0.01); ROLL was greatest in beef ID, bloody/serumy, fat-like, umami, and salty, while HIOX scored greatest for oxidized, bitter, and sour. Brown/roasted was greatest (p < 0.05) in HIOX and CO. Muscle impacted liver-like flavor (P = 0.01), which was lower (p < 0.05) in SM than all other muscle types; LL, TB, PM and GM were similar (p > 0.05) for liver-like. Packaging influenced TBARS (p < 0.01); HIOX had the greatest concentration of MDA, followed by CO, OW and ROLL with the lowest (p ≤ 0.05). Muscle influenced TBARS (P < 0.01), where TB was greatest (p < 0.05), followed by SM, PM, and GM, which were similar (p > 0.05); LL had the lowest MDA concentration. Oxidized (P < 0.01, r = 0.34), cardboard (P < 0.01, r = 0.30), bitterness (P < 0.01, r = 0.23), and sourness (P < 0.01; r = 0.22) were positively correlated with TBARS, while beef ID (P < 0.01, r = –0.23), umami (P < 0.01, r = –0.23), and tenderness (P < 0.01; r = –0.21) were negatively correlated.ConclusionRetail display lighting did not directly influence sensory characteristics or lipid oxidation; lighting only impacted cardboard flavor in an interaction with muscle type. These results suggest after 72h retail display, flavor differences between steaks of similar muscle and packaging displayed under LED or fluorescent lights may not be distinguishable.