National Beef Tenderness Survey−2010: Warner-Bratzler shear force values and
sensory panel ratings for beef steaks from United States retail and food service
establishments
M. R. Guelker, A. N. Haneklaus, J. C. Brooks, C. C. Carr, R. J. Delmore, Jr., D. B. Griffin,
D. S. Hale, K. B. Harris, G. G. Mafi, D. D. Johnson, C. L. Lorenzen, R. J. Maddock, J. N.
Martin, R. K. Miller, C. R. Raines, D. L. VanOverbeke, L. L. Vedral, B. E. Wasser and J.
W. Savell
J ANIM SCI 2013, 91:1005-1014.
doi: 10.2527/jas.2012-5785 originally published online December 10, 2012
The online version of this article, along with updated information and services, is located on
the World Wide Web at:
http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/91/2/1005
www.asas.org
Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by John Hutcheson on May 12, 2013
National Beef Tenderness Survey–2010:
Warner-Bratzler shear force values and sensory panel ratings
for beef steaks from United States retail and food service establishments1
M. R. Guelker,* A. N. Haneklaus,* J. C. Brooks,† C. C. Carr, ‡ R. J. Delmore Jr.,§ D. B. Griffin,*
D. S. Hale,* K. B. Harris,* G. G. Mafi,# D. D. Johnson,‡ C. L. Lorenzen,ǁ R. J. Maddock,¶ J. N. Martin,†
R. K. Miller,* C. R. Raines,** D. L. VanOverbeke,# L. L. Vedral,# B. E. Wasser,†† and J. W. Savell*2
*Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, College Station 77843-2471; †Department
of Animal and Food Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock 79409; ‡Department of Animal Sciences,
University of Florida, Gainesville 32611; §Department of Animal Science, California Polytechnic State University,
San Luis Obispo 93407; #Division of Animal Science, Oklahoma State University, Stillwater 74078; ǁDepartment
of Animal Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia 65211; ¶Department of Animal Sciences, North Dakota
State University, Fargo 58105-6050; **Department of Dairy and Animal Science, Pennsylvania State University,
University Park 16801; ††National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, 9110 East Nichols Avenue, Centennial, CO 80112
ABSTRACT: The tenderness and palatability of retail and
food service beef steaks from across the United States (12
cities for retail, 5 cities for food service) were evaluated
using Warner-Bratzler shear (WBS) and consumer
sensory panels. Subprimal postfabrication storage or
aging times at retail establishments averaged 20.5 d with
a range of 1 to 358 d, whereas postfabrication times at the
food service level revealed an average time of 28.1 d with
a range of 9 to 67 d. Approximately 64% of retail steaks
were labeled with a packer/processor or store brand. For
retail, top blade had among the lowest (P < 0.05) WBS
values, whereas steaks from the round had the greatest
(P < 0.05) values. There were no differences (P > 0.05)
in WBS values between moist-heat and dry-heat cookery
methods for the top round and bottom round steaks or
between enhanced (contained salt or phosphate solution)
or nonenhanced steaks. Food service top loin and rib eye
steaks had the lowest (P < 0.05) WBS values compared
with top sirloin steaks. Retail top blade steaks and food
service top loin steaks received among the greatest (P <
0.05) consumer sensory panel ratings compared with
the other steaks evaluated. Prime food service rib eye
steaks received the greatest ratings (P < 0.05) for overall
like, like tenderness, tenderness level, like juiciness,
and juiciness level, whereas ungraded rib eye steaks
received the lowest ratings (P < 0.05) for like tenderness
and tenderness level. The WBS values for food service
steaks were greater (P < 0.05) for the Select and ungraded
groups compared with the Prime, Top Choice, and Low
Choice groups. The WBS values and sensory ratings were
comparable to the last survey, signifying that no recent or
substantive changes in tenderness have occurred.
Key words: beef, consumer panels, market survey, tenderness, Warner-Bratzler shear force
© 2013 American Society of Animal Science. All rights reserved.
INTRODUCTION
The National Beef Tenderness Survey has been
conducted on 3 previous occasions in the United States
(Morgan et al., 1991; Brooks et al., 2000; Voges et al.,
1This study was supported in part by The Beef
2Corresponding author: [email protected]
Received August 23, 2012.
Accepted November 11, 2012.
Checkoff.
J. Anim. Sci. 2013.91:1005–1014
doi:10.2527/jas2012-5785
2007). It has proven to be a valuable tool for the beef
industry by offering the ability to not only determine
which consumer-available steaks exhibit acceptable
palatability but also to identify the cuts that are in need
of improvement. Real or perceived changes in beef
production after the last survey require an update to
this benchmark to answer the key questions about how
the beef of today is meeting the needs of consumers
through the retail and food service channels. The
Canadian beef industry recently conducted 2 surveys to
1005
Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by John Hutcheson on May 12, 2013
1006
Guelker et al.
measure consumer satisfaction with retail beef (Canadian
Cattlemen’s Association and Beef Information Centre,
2010). One of the purposes of their most recent survey
is to use the information to see how best to develop
palatability enhancements for beef.
In Voges et al. (2007), steaks from the round had
the greatest (P < 0.05) shear force values compared
with the steaks from the chuck, rib, and loin. All steaks
were cooked using dry heat, which may have been
inappropriate for the steaks from the round. Kolle et al.
(2004) found moist-heat cookery with injections of either
salt and phosphate or bromelain to be more effective in
improving tenderness of some muscles of the round.
It may be that cooking steaks from the round using
moist-heat cookery may provide some improvement in
tenderness compared with dry-heat cookery.
The objectives of this survey were 1) to determine
the tenderness of beef steaks from U.S. retail and food
service establishments using Warner-Bratzler shear
(WBS) and consumer sensory panels, 2) to collect
aging, branding, USDA quality grade, tenderization, and
enhancement information from store visits and product
packaging, and 3) to use moist-heat cookery for round
steaks in addition to grated, nonstick electric grills.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Animal Care and Use Committee approval was not
obtained for this study because samples were collected
from retail stores and federally inspected foodservice
establishments.
Cities were chosen to represent a broad geographical
range and to maintain some historical linkage with cities
that have been used in previous surveys. Cities included
New York, NY; Philadelphia, PA; Los Angeles, CA; San
Francisco, CA; Denver, CO; Las Vegas, NV; Tampa, FL;
Atlanta, GA; Kansas City, MO; Houston, TX; Chicago,
IL; and Seattle, WA. Each city was sampled once over
a 12-mo period between March 2010 and February 2011.
Personnel from 9 U.S. universities, many of whom had
collaborated on the previous surveys, assisted with the
collection of products and information.
In each city, 2 to 3 retail chains, which represented
at least one-third of the total area market share, were
selected for sampling. From each chain, 4 individual
stores were identified and used in the sampling matrix.
Overall, 8 to 12 retail stores were sampled in each
metropolitan area. In addition, if a membership club
retail store existed in the city and was not included in
the one-third market share, 1 store of the club chain
representing the largest market share was sampled.
Representatives of the retail marketing team of the
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association assisted with
identifying and obtaining permission from the retail
chains that were surveyed. Corporate retail contacts
were asked to propose the individual retail stores of
their respective chain to sample. Store managers were
notified of the impending sampling visit, and dates and
times were coordinated between each individual store
and the university responsible for sampling.
Upon arrival at each retail or club store, product
selection teams conducted 3 basic activities. First, 1
member of the selection team would enter the cold
storage area to obtain product box information. The
main goal of obtaining data directly from the box was
to determine postfabrication storage or aging times.
The second activity was analyzing the meat cases.
This included recording case type (coffin style, tiered
style; self-service, full service), measuring case length,
determining case length per species, noting available
brands (national, regional, private store label), noting
available quality grades, noting the presence or absence
of enhanced product, recording sales and promotions, and
collecting or taking photographs of marketing materials
(case banners, wall signs, brochures). The majority of
this information was reported by Guelker (2011) and is
not included here. The final activity conducted in store
was product collection. Steaks were selected on the basis
of a preassigned collection schedule and were randomly
selected from various locations within each retail case.
Retail steaks were shipped overnight to Texas
A&M University in insulated containers with dry
ice or frozen cooler packs and were processed under
refrigerated conditions (2°C to 4°C) on arrival. Steaks
were removed from store packaging and all information
available was recorded, including brand designation,
marketing claims, enhancement with percentage
pumped, sodium content, and form of tenderization,
along with any other important information. Each
steak was measured for average external fat thickness
and steak thickness, identified individually, vacuum
packaged, and frozen at −40°C. Average external fat
thickness was determined by calculating the average
of 3 separate fat thickness measurements to best
represent the entire steak. Steak thickness was taken by
1 measurement in the middle of the steak.
These steaks were sampled from the retail case,
and the Industry-Wide Cooperative Meat Identification
Standards Committee (2003) was used for naming and
numbering using the Uniform Retail Meat Identity
Standards (URMIS): top blade steak (URMIS 1166);
rib eye steak, lip on, boneless (URMIS 1203); rib eye
steak, lip on, bone in (URMIS 1197); top loin steak,
boneless (URMIS 1404); top loin steak, bone in (URMIS
1398); T-bone steak (URMIS 1369); porterhouse steak
(URMIS 1330); top sirloin steak, boneless, cap off
(URMIS 1426); top round steak (URMIS 1553); and
bottom round steak (URMIS 1466).
Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by John Hutcheson on May 12, 2013
National Beef Tenderness Survey–2010
Steaks were assigned randomly to be used either for
WBS evaluation or for consumer sensory panels using the
random number generator in Microsoft Excel. Packaged
and frozen steaks assigned to consumer sensory panels
were assigned randomly to the collaborating universities
(California Polytechnic State University did not conduct
a sensory panel) using the random number generator in
Microsoft Excel. Steaks were shipped overnight in insulated
containers with dry ice to the designated university.
Collaborators also sampled 1 food service establishment
in 5 cities (Houston, TX; Tampa, FL; Denver, CO; Las
Vegas, NV; Philadelphia, PA), evaluating each USDA
quality grade of subprimals that the establishment fabricated
into steaks (these establishments were independent
operating units of a major national food service supplier).
Postfabrication storage or aging times were recorded, along
with brand designation, marketing claims, enhancement
(with percentage pumped), sodium content, and method
of tenderization. Steaks were shipped to Texas A&M
University and were processed under the same conditions
as the retail steaks. These steaks were sampled from food
service establishments, and the USDA (2010) Institutional
Meat Purchase Specifications (IMPS) descriptions were
used for naming and numbering: rib eye roll steak (IMPS
1112); top loin steak, boneless (IMPS 1180); and top sirloin
butt steaks, center cut, boneless (IMPS 1184B).
Food service steaks were vacuum packaged, frozen,
and shipped to the University of Missouri in the same
manner as retail steaks. Steaks were assigned randomly
by Texas A&M University to be used either for WBS
evaluation or for consumer sensory panels using the
random number generator in Microsoft Excel. In the
case that an enhanced and nonenhanced pair of steaks
from the same subprimal was available, enhanced and
nonenhanced steaks were divided evenly and randomly
to be used for WBS or consumer sensory panel.
Dry-Heat Cookery
Steaks were thawed in a 4°C cooler for 48 h before
cooking. Steaks from the round were assigned randomly
to be cooked using moist-heat cookery in a convection
oven or on a grated, nonstick electric grill (Hamilton
Beach Indoor/Outdoor Grill; Hamilton Beach, Southern
Pines, NC). All other retail steaks were cooked on grated,
nonstick electric grills. The grills were preheated for 15
min to an approximate temperature of 177°C. Food service
steaks were cooked on a Garland gas grill (Mississauga,
Ontario, Canada) preheated before cooking to a surface
temperature of approximately 232°C. All retail steaks
were flipped on reaching an internal temperature of 35°C,
and steaks were removed from the cooking surface on
reaching an internal temperature of 70°C. After achieving
70°C, steaks for WBS force were placed in a single layer
1007
on a plastic tray, covered with plastic wrap, and stored
in a cooler for approximately 12 h at 2°C to 4°C. Food
service steaks assigned to consumer panels were kept
warm by placing them (approximately 20 min) in an Alto
Shaam 100-TH oven (Alto Shaam, Inc., Menomonee
Falls, WI) and using a temperature probe inserted into 1
of the steaks to maintain an internal temperature of 70°C
before the panel. Internal temperature was monitored with
a thermocouple (Omega HH501BT, Stamford, CT) using
a 0.02-cm-diam. iron-constantan Type-T thermocouple
wire.
Moist-Heat Cookery
A subset of top round and bottom round steaks were
allocated to moist-heat cookery. Steaks from the round
were cooked using moist-heat cookery in a convection
oven using a Calphalon Everyday Nonstick 8-1/2 or
6-Quart Dutch Oven (anodized aluminum; Toledo,
OH) with 250-mL water included. Steaks were thawed
in a 4°C cooler for 48 h before cooking. The oven was
preheated for 15 min to an approximate temperature
of 177°C. After achieving 70°C, steaks for WBS force
were removed from the oven, placed in a single layer on
a plastic tray, covered with plastic wrap, and stored in
a cooler for approximately 12 h at 2°C to 4°C. Internal
temperature was monitored with a thermocouple (Omega
HH501BT, Stamford, CT) using a 0.02-cm-diam. ironconstantan Type-T thermocouple wire.
Warner-Bratzler Shear Force Determination
Steaks for WBS were cooked in the same manner as
consumer sensory panel steaks. Steaks were trimmed of
visible connective tissue to expose muscle fiber orientation.
At least six 1.3-cm cores were removed from each muscle.
Six cores from the M. longissimus lumborum and 4
cores from the M. psoas major were used to uniformly
sample T-bone and porterhouse steaks. Cores were
removed parallel to the muscle fibers and sheared once,
perpendicular to the muscle fibers, on a United Testing
machine (United SSTM-500, Huntington Beach, CA) at
a cross-head speed of 200 mm/min using an 11.3-kg load
cell and a 1.02-cm-thick V-shape blade with a 60° angle
and a half-round peak. The peak force (N) needed to shear
each core was recorded, and the mean peak shear force of
the cores was used for statistical analysis.
Consumer Panels
Consumer sensory panels were conducted at Texas
A&M University, Oklahoma State University, Texas
Tech University, University of Florida, Pennsylvania
State University, University of Missouri, and North
Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by John Hutcheson on May 12, 2013
1008
Guelker et al.
Dakota State University. Panelists were recruited from
surrounding communities by randomly calling possible
participants, placing advertisements in the local paper,
and/or through e-mail listservs and verifying they
were suitable and willing consumers. A demographic
questionnaire was filled out and a consent form was
signed by each panelist. Steaks were assigned randomly
to serving days using a random number generator. Each
panelist was given unsalted crackers and distilled water
between samples. Each panelist received two 1.27-cm
cubes of each sample and evaluated 8 random samples
during the session. Samples were characterized using
10-point scales for overall like (10 = like extremely,
1 = dislike extremely), overall like of tenderness (10 =
like extremely, 1 = dislike extremely), intensity of the
tenderness (10 = extremely tender, 1 = extremely tough),
overall like of flavor (10 = like extremely, 1 = dislike
extremely), level of beef flavor (10 = extremely intense,
1 = extremely bland or no flavor), overall like of juiciness
(10 = like extremely, 1 = dislike extremely), and level of
juiciness (10 = extremely juicy, 1 = extremely dry).
Statistical Analysis
Data were analyzed using PROC means, and mean
separation was conducted for significance between
treatments, when appropriate, using PROC GLM with
Pdiff option with an α level (P < 0.05; SAS Inst. Inc.,
Cary, NC).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Postfabrication Aging Times
Subprimal postfabrication storage or aging times at
retail establishments averaged 20.5 d (Table 1), with a
range of 1 to 358 d. The average was less than found
by Voges et al. (2007), with an average of 22.6 d. The
range of days was wider than found by Voges et al.
(2007), with a range of 3 to 83 d, Brooks et al. (2000),
with a range of 2 to 61 d, and Morgan et al. (1991),
with a range of 3 to 90 d. Bone-in rib eye steaks had
the least percentage of boxed subprimals stored or aged
fewer than 14 d, whereas eyes of round had the greatest
percentage. Across all subprimals, 37.5% were stored or
aged for fewer than 14 d, which was greater than the
19.6% reported for NBTS 2006 (Voges et al., 2007).
The extended storage or aging times at the retail
level may be attributed to economic considerations.
The subprimals with days greater than those reported in
previous surveys, bone-in rib eye and boneless strip loin,
are among the most expensive wholesale steaks, and
with the economic downturn in the United States in the
late 2000s, decreased disposable income or confidence or
both may have caused lower demand for higher-priced
steaks. Possibly, the subprimals were held frozen for
an extended period of time before being sold; however,
there was no way to determine if this was the case. For
this group, determining the actual postmortem storage
or aging under refrigeration conditions was impossible,
which makes our assessment of factors that affected
these products more challenging.
Postfabrication storage or aging times for subprimals
at the food service level (Table 1) revealed an average
time of 28.1 d. This was similar to the times reported
by Voges et al. (2007), with an average of 30.1 d. The
range of days of storage for all subprimals was 9 to 67 d,
with each subprimal having a similar range. These data
show a narrower range in days of storage than Voges et
al. (2007) did.
Over the course of conducting these surveys, 1 of
the most frequently asked questions we have received
is about the average postfabrication storage or aging
times for the subprimals in the retail and food service
operations, but the most surprising fact may be the
minimum and maximum days. The minimum and
maximum days always seems to elicit a surprised
response from individuals who learn of such a range of
time between products being produced and packaged
and when they are offered to consumers through either
the retail channel or food service channel.
Product Information
Approximately 64% of retail steaks were labeled
with a packer/processor or store brand or both (data not
Table 1. Postfabrication storage or aging times for
subprimals audited in the cold storage facilities of retail
stores and food service operations
No. of
Item
cases Mean
Retail
Shoulder clod
180
20.3
Rib eye roll
229
19.6
Bone-in rib eye
90
31.5
Strip loin
236
21.6
Bone-in strip loin
80
29.5
Short loin
166
19.1
Top sirloin
255
20.3
Top round
196
16.4
Bottom round
130
17.2
Eye round
103
17.3
Overall
1,665
20.5
Food service
Rib eye
19
29.3
Top loin
21
29.8
Top sirloin
18
24.7
Overall
58
28.1
SD
Days
Age <
Minimum Maximum 14 d, %
10.4
13.6
37.4
24.9
17.0
15.1
10.4
9.8
10.1
12.8
17.5
1
2
6
2
2
2
1
2
3
5
1
51
112
358
334
69
91
51
47
63
76
358
27.2
34.8
11.1
36.2
20.0
44.2
32.4
46.6
41.5
48.5
35.7
16.1
15.7
15.5
15.9
13
9
9
9
67
61
66
67
10.5
15.8
6.2
11.4
Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by John Hutcheson on May 12, 2013
1009
National Beef Tenderness Survey–2010
Table 2. Least squares means ± SE for steak thickness, external fat thickness, and steak weights for steaks from retail
stores and food service operations
Steak
Retail
Top blade
Rib eye, lip on, boneless
Rib eye, lip on, bone in
Top loin
Top loin, bone in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top sirloin, boneless, cap off
Top round
Bottom round
n
Steak thickness, cm
External fat thickness, cm
Steak weight, kg
123
200
77
181
71
125
48
258
110
113
P-value
Food service
Rib eye
Top loin
Top sirloin
1.75f (±0.06)
2.79a (±0.05)
2.53cd (±0.08)
2.77ab (±0.05)
2.59bc (±0.08)
2.44cd (±0.06)
2.33d (±0.10)
2.88a (±0.04)
2.07e (±0.06)
1.59f (±0.06)
<0.0001
0.15f (±0.02)
0.45abc (±0.02)
0.47ab (±0.03)
0.42bcd (±0.02)
0.49a (±0.03)
0.41cd (±0.02)
0.48ab (±0.03)
0.38de (±0.01)
0.12f (±0.02)
0.33e (±0.02)
<0.0001
0.17h (±0.01)
0.38e (±0.01)
0.45cd (±0.02)
0.31f (±0.01)
0.37e (±0.02)
0.49bc (±0.01)
0.52ab (±0.02)
0.43d (±0.01)
0.58a (±0.02)
0.24g (±0.02)
<0.0001
152
168
144
2.95 (±0.03)
2.91 (±0.03)
2.94 (±0.03)
0.7356
0.42a (±0.04)
0.50a (±0.04)
0.32b (±0.04)
0.0042
0.36ab (±0.02)
0.33b (±0.02)
0.40a (±0.02)
0.0229
P-value
a–hLeast
squares means in the same column and within the same steak source without common superscript letters differ (P < 0.05).
reported in tabular form). Voges et al. (2007) reported that
47% of the steaks in their survey were from a branded
program, so it appears that this trend has increased,
at least numerically, from the previous survey in the
United States. The importance of branding to ensuring
highly palatable beef was addressed by the National
Cattlemen’s Beef Association (2006), and Strydom et al.
(2012) found that branding was more likely to indicate
minimum postmortem aging requirements and to be
found in full-service food retailers. Branded programs
may offer consumers improved eating experiences
because of the control of so many preharvest (e.g., breed
type, feeding regimen) and postharvest (e.g., postmortem
age, marbling level, electrical stimulation) factors that
contribute to palatability.
Steak thickness, external fat thickness, and steak
weight are reported in Table 2. Steaks from the rib and
loin were cut the thickest (P < 0.05), whereas steaks
from the round and chuck were cut the thinnest (P <
0.05). Top sirloin steaks were cut the thickest at 2.89 cm
compared with the thinnest steak, bottom round, which
was cut to a thickness of 1.59 cm. Mean external fat
thickness ranged from 0.12 cm for top round to 0.49 cm
for bone-in top loin steak.
For food service steaks, top sirloin steaks had less
(P < 0.05) fat when compared with rib eye steaks and
top loin steaks. Top loin steaks weighed the least (P <
0.05), and top sirloin steaks were the heaviest (P < 0.05).
Food service steak thickness averaged between 2.91
and 2.95 cm. External fat thickness means were greater
numerically than those reported by Voges et al. (2007).
Warner-Bratzler Shear Force
The WBS values for retail steaks are reported in
Table 3. Bottom round and top round steaks had the
greatest (P < 0.05) WBS values compared with all other
steaks. Top blade had among the least WBS values
compared with all other steaks. These data are similar
to those reported by Voges et al. (2007), which stated
the shoulder clod, eye of round, top round, and bottom
round had the greatest WBS at 27.8, 33.2, 29.6, and 36.0
N, respectively (the top blade steak was not selected in
the previous tenderness survey). Additionally, Voges
Table 3. Least squares means and SE for Warner-Bratzler
shear values (N) of retail and food service steaks
Steak
No. of steaks
Retail
Top blade
41
Rib eye, lip on, boneless
84
Rib eye, lip on, bone in
31
Top loin
78
Top loin, bone in
27
T-bone
49
Porterhouse
21
Top sirloin, boneless, cap off
103
Top round
44
Bottom round
44
P-value
Food service
Rib eye
Top loin
Top sirloin
81
80
72
Mean, N
SE
21.5b
24.2b
23.9b
23.3b
24.6b
23.1b
23.6b
24.1b
29.8a
31.2a
<0.0001
1.0
0.7
1.2
0.8
1.2
1.0
1.5
0.7
1.0
1.0
27.3b
0.7
25.8b
0.7
30.2a
0.7
<0.0001
P-value
a,bLeast squares means in the same column and within the same steak
source without common superscript letters differ (P < 0.05).
Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by John Hutcheson on May 12, 2013
1010
Guelker et al.
Table 4. Percentage distribution of retail and food service steaks stratified into tenderness categories based on Belew
et al. (2003)
Steak
Retail
Top blade
Rib eye, lip on, boneless
Rib eye, lip on, bone in
Top loin
Top loin, bone in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top sirloin, boneless, cap off
Top round
Bottom round
Food service
Rib eye
Top loin
Top sirloin
1WBS
Very Tender,
WBS1 < 31.4 N
Tender,
31.4 N < WBS < 38.3 N
91.89
95.45
95.65
84.78
71.74
95.56
91.11
91.11
76.09
47.37
5.41
4.55
4.35
10.87
15.22
4.44
8.89
6.67
13.04
23.68
81.08
83.78
58.11
14.86
13.51
32.43
Intermediate,
38.3 N < WBS < 45.1 N
Tough,
WBS > 45.1 N
2.70
2.17
8.70
2.17
4.35
2.22
6.52
23.68
4.35
5.26
4.05
5.41
2.70
4.05
= Warner-Bratzler shear values.
et al. (2007) reported top loin, bone-in top loin, bonein rib eye, T-bone, and porterhouse steaks to have the
least WBS values. In data not reported in tabular form,
enhanced steaks did not differ (P > 0.05) from their
nonenhanced counterparts. Although the WBS values
were unaffected, enhancement may have played a role in
other palatability attributes, but they were not segregated
for sensory panel evaluation.
That the top blade steak (M. infraspinatus) had among
the lowest WBS values has been reported by a number
of researchers over many decades (Ramsbottom et al.,
1945; McKeith et al., 1985; Paterson and Parrish, 1986;
Carmack et al., 1995; Von Seggern et al., 2005; Powell et
al., 2011). A challenge to this muscle when merchandized
as a top blade steak is the heavy connective tissue seam
contained within. Kolle and Savell (2003) demonstrated
a method to remove this connective tissue and bind the
muscle together with transglutaminase to improve not
only visual characteristics of the bonded steaks but also
the consumer sensory ratings. Merchandising the M.
infraspinatus as the “flat iron” steak, where the muscle
is portioned into steaks with the heavy connective tissue
removed, has been a success story for the U.S. beef
industry (Von Seggern et al., 2005).
Most of the cuts in this survey were similar in
ranking compared with the composite study reported
by Sullivan and Calkins (2011). In their work, the M.
infraspinatus was considered tender, the M. longissimus
thoracis et lumborum and M. semimembranosus were
considered intermediate, and the M. gluteus medius
and M. gluteobiceps were considered tough. The shear
force values reported by Sullivan and Calkins (2011) are
somewhat numerically greater than those in the present
Table 5. Least squares means ± SE for sensory panel ratings for retail steaks1
Overall
Tenderness
Tenderness
Flavor
Flavor
Juiciness
Juiciness
like/dislike
like/dislike
level
like/dislike
level
like/dislike
level
6.4a (±0.1)
6.8a (±0.1)
6.8a (±0.1)
6.3a (±0.1)
6.1ab (±0.1)
6.5a (±0.1)
6.5a (±0.1)
6.3ab (±0.1)
6.3b (±0.1)
6.2b (±0.1)
6.3a (±0.1)
6.2a (±0.1)
6.0b (±0.1)
5.8b (±0.1)
cd
bc
bc
c
cd
bc
5.9 (±0.1)
6.1 (±0.1)
6.1 (±0.1)
5.7 (±0.1)
5.6 (±0.1)
5.7 (±0.1)
5.7bc (±0.1)
abc
bc
b
ab
ab
b
6.1 (±0.1)
6.2 (±0.1)
6.2 (±0.1)
6.1 (±0.1)
6.1 (±0.1)
5.9 (±0.1)
5.8b (±0.1)
abc
bc
bc
bc
abc
b
6.1 (±0.1)
6.2 (±0.2)
6.2 (±0.2)
5.9 (±0.1)
5.9 (±0.1)
5.9 (±0.1)
5.7bcd (±0.1)
cd
cd
cd
bc
bc
bc
5.9 (±0.1)
5.9 (±0.1)
5.8 (±0.1)
5.9 (±0.1)
5.9 (±0.1)
5.7 (±0.1)
5.7bc (±0.1)
bcd
bcd
bcd
ab
ab
bcd
5.9 (±0.2)
6.0 (±0.2)
5.9 (±0.2)
6.1 (±0.2)
6.2 (±0.2)
5.6 (±0.2)
5.6bcd (±0.2)
d
d
d
c
c
cd
5.7 (±0.1)
5.6 (±0.1)
5.6 (±0.1)
5.7 (±0.1)
5.7 (±0.1)
5.5 (±0.1)
5.5cde (±0.1)
e
e
e
d
d
d
5.1 (±0.1)
5.0 (±0.1)
5.0 (±0.1)
5.2 (±0.1)
5.3 (±0.1)
5.3 (±0.1)
5.3de (±0.1)
e
e
e
d
d
d
5.1 (±0.1)
5.0 (±0.1)
5.0 (±0.1)
5.2 (±0.1)
5.3 (±0.1)
5.3 (±0.1)
5.2e (±0.1)
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
<0.0001
P-value
a-eLeast squares means in the same column without common superscript letters differ (P < 0.05).
1Sensory panel ratings for like/dislike: 10 = like extremely, 1 = dislike extremely; tenderness: 10 = very tender, 1 = not at all tender; juiciness: 10 = very juicy,
1 = not at all juicy; flavor: 10 = extreme amount, 1 = none at all.
2No. of steaks evaluated.
Steak
Top blade
Rib eye, lip on, boneless
Rib eye, lip on, bone in
Top loin, boneless
Top loin, bone in
T-bone
Porterhouse
Top sirloin, boneless
Top round
Bottom round
n2
72
115
45
102
44
76
27
155
64
60
Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by John Hutcheson on May 12, 2013
National Beef Tenderness Survey–2010
1011
Table 6. Least squares means ± SE for sensory panel ratings for food service steaks1
Steak
Rib eye
Top loin
Top sirloin
n2
73
84
68
Overall like/dislike Tenderness like/dislike Tenderness level Flavor like/dislike Flavor level Juiciness like/dislike Juiciness level
6.8 (±0.1)
6.8b (±0.1)
6.8b (±0.1)
6.8 (±0.1)
6.7b (±0.1)
6.6b (±0.1)
6.6b (±0.1)
7.3 (±0.1)
7.5a (±0.1)
7.4a (±0.1)
7.2 (±0.1)
7.2a (±0.1)
7.2a (±0.1)
7.1a (±0.1)
7.0 (±0.1)
6.9b (±0.1)
6.8b (±0.1)
7.0 (±0.1)
6.9b (±0.1)
6.9ab (±0.1)
6.8ab (±0.1)
0.0591
<0.0001
0.0004
0.1544
0.0238
0.0037
0.0029
P-value
a,bLeast squares means in the same column without common superscript letters differ (P < 0.05).
1Sensory panel ratings for like/dislike: 10 = like extremely, 1 = dislike extremely; tenderness: 10 = very tender, 1 = not at all tender; juiciness: 10 = very juicy,
1 = not at all juicy; flavor: 10 = extreme amount, 1 = none at all.
2No. of steaks evaluated.
study, which causes shifts in the thresholds for what is
considered tender in their study vs. the present study.
Not surprising, retail cuts from the round continue to
have WBS values greater than those from the rib and loin,
which has contributed to work in the area of determining
the causes of such tenderness differences (Anderson et al.,
2012) and methods to improve tenderness of round cuts
(Kolle et al., 2004; Mueller et al., 2006). Anderson et al.
(2012) stated that there were similarities and differences
in certain biochemical measurements in cuts from the
round compared with the M. longissimus thoracis et
lumborum that provided important information related
to why these muscles differed in tenderness.
In data not reported in tabular form, there were no
differences in WBS values between the moist-heat and
dry-heat cookery methods for the top round and bottom
round steaks. Moist-heat cooking these steaks to an
internal temperature of 70°C rather than a higher end
point temperature may have prevented this method from
achieving the desired increase in tenderness we were
hoping to achieve. Developing appropriate cooking
methods that improve the palatability of cuts from the
round has to be a continuing priority for the beef industry.
Least squares means for WBS values of food service
steaks are presented in Table 3. Top loin and rib eye
steaks had lower (P < 0.05) WBS values compared
with top sirloin steaks. All steaks had low WBS values,
which agrees with the findings of Voges et al. (2007). In
the current survey, there were no differences between
the WBS values for the rib eye steak and top loin steak,
whereas in Voges et al. (2007), the top loin steak had
lower (P < 0.05) WBS values than did the rib eye steak.
Tenderness categories developed by Shackelford et
al. (1991) and Belew et al. (2003) are based on WBS
values and were used to determine percentage of retail
and food service steaks that fell into each tenderness
category (Table 4). Top round, bottom round, bone-in
top loin, and boneless top loin steaks were found to have
some steaks (about 2% to 5%) with WBS values over
45.1 N. The total percentage of top round and bottom
round steaks with a WBS value over 45.1 N was less
than that reported in the 2006 survey, but no other steaks
were found to have a WBS value over 45.1 N by Voges
et al. (2007). A greater percentage of steaks were found
to have lower WBS values compared with Voges et al.
(2007); however, the range of tenderness within the steak
type was wider. Consistent cooking methods allowed for
the comparison of tenderness between steaks sampled in
2006. However, the single cooking method did not allow
us to optimize different cooking methods for certain
steaks that contain greater amounts of connective tissue
(Brooks et al., 2000).
Top loin steaks had the greatest percentage of steaks
in the very tender category, WBS < 31.4 N. Top sirloin
steaks had the greatest percentage of steaks in the tender,
intermediate, and tough categories, 31.4 to 38.3, 38.3 to
45.1, and >45.1 N, respectively. Least squares means for
WBS values of food service steaks stratified by USDA
Table 7. Least squares means ± SE for sensory panel ratings for food service rib eye steaks stratified by USDA grade group1
USDA grade group
Prime
Top Choice
Low Choice
Select
Ungraded
Sensory rating
(n = 15)
(n = 15)
(n = 20)
(n = 19)
(n = 4)
P-value
Overall like/dislike
7.5a (±0.2)
6.9ab (±0.2)
6.6b (±0.2)
7.0ab (±0.2)
6.1b (±0.4)
0.0155
Tenderness like/dislike
7.8a (±0.2)
7.4ab (±0.2)
6.8c (±0.2)
7.1bc (±0.2)
5.1d (±0.4)
<0.0001
Tenderness level
7.8a (±0.2)
7.3ab (±0.2)
6.7b (±0.2)
7.1b (±0.2)
5.0c (±0.5)
<0.0001
Flavor like/dislike
7.1 (±0.2)
6.9 (±0.3)
6.7 (±0.2)
7.0 (±0.2)
6.5 (±0.5)
0.6311
Flavor level
7.0 (±0.2)
7.0 (±0.2)
6.6 (±0.2)
6.7 (±0.2)
6.3 (±0.5)
0.4991
Juiciness like/dislike
7.4a (±0.3)
6.4b (±0.3)
6.1b (±0.2)
6.7ab (±0.2)
6.7ab (±0.5)
0.0042
a
b
b
ab
Juiciness
7.4 (±0.3)
6.2 (±0.3)
6.0 (±0.2)
6.6 (±0.2)
6.6ab (±0.5)
0.0015
a-dLeast squares means in the same column without common superscript letters differ (P < 0.05).
1Sensory panel ratings for like/dislike: 10 = like extremely, 1 = dislike extremely; tenderness: 10 = very tender, 1 = not at all tender; juiciness: 10 = very juicy,
1 = not at all juicy; flavor: 10 = extreme amount, 1 = none at all.
Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by John Hutcheson on May 12, 2013
1012
Guelker et al.
Table 8. Least squares means ± SE for sensory panel ratings for food service top loin steaks stratified by USDA grade group1
USDA grade group
Prime
Top Choice
Low Choice
Select
Ungraded
Sensory rating
(n = 16)
(n = 24)
(n = 20)
(n = 20)
(n = 4)
P-value
Overall like/dislike
7.2 (±0.2)
7.4 (±0.2)
7.1 (±0.2)
7.2 (±0.2)
7.8 (±0.5)
0.7116
Tenderness like/dislike
7.6 (±0.2)
7.6 (±0.2)
7.5 (±0.2)
7.6 (±0.2)
7.2 (±0.5)
0.9430
Tenderness level
7.5 (±0.2)
7.3 (±0.2)
7.5 (±0.2)
7.5 (±0.2)
7.0 (±0.5)
0.8458
Flavor like/dislike
7.0 (±0.2)
7.3 (±0.2)
7.1 (±0.2)
7.0 (±0.2)
7.6 (±0.5)
0.7020
Flavor level
7.0 (±0.2)
7.4 (±0.2)
7.1 (±0.2)
7.0 (±0.2)
7.5 (±0.5)
0.4651
Juiciness like/dislike
7.2 (±0.3)
7.0 (±0.2)
7.2 (±0.2)
6.9 (±0.2)
7.6 (±0.5)
0.6755
Juiciness
7.1 (±0.3)
6.9 (±0.2)
7.2 (±0.2)
7.0 (±0.2)
7.6 (±0.5)
0.7593
1Sensory panel ratings for like/dislike: 10 = like extremely, 1 = dislike extremely; tenderness: 10 = very tender, 1 = not at all tender; juiciness: 10 = very juicy,
1 = not at all juicy; flavor: 10 = extreme amount, 1 = none at all.
quality grade are reported in Table 9 (see below). Prime
had the least (P < 0.05) mean WBS value, and Select
and ungraded had the greatest (P < 0.05) mean WBS
value. These data differ from that reported by Voges et
al. (2007), which did not find significant differences
across grades for WBS values. However, differences
were found by Brooks et al. (2000) for rib eye and top
sirloin steaks.
Retail Consumer Sensory Evaluations
Least squares means for sensory panel ratings of
retail steaks are presented in Table 5. The top blade
steak received among the greatest (P < 0.05) ratings by
consumers for overall like, like tenderness, tenderness
level, like juiciness, and juiciness level. The top blade
and boneless rib eye received among the greatest (P <
0.05) ratings for like flavor. Top round and bottom round
received the least (P < 0.05) ratings by consumers for
overall like, like tenderness, tenderness level, like flavor,
and flavor level and among the least for like juiciness.
These findings are similar to those reported by Voges
et al. (2007). Steaks from the rib, loin, and chuck were
consistently rated greatest (P < 0.05) for like flavor,
flavor level, like juiciness, and juiciness level, whereas
steaks from the sirloin and round were rated the least
(P < 0.05) for the same attributes. This agrees with
Voges et al. (2007), which exhibited the same trend (the
top blade was not evaluated in their study).
Food Service Consumer Sensory Evaluations
Least squares means for sensory panel ratings of
food service steaks are reported in Table 6. Top loin
steaks received the greatest (P < 0.05) rating for most
attributes, including like tenderness, tenderness level,
flavor level, like juiciness, and juiciness level. Voges et
al. (2007) found that top loin steaks, in addition to rib
eye steaks, were rated the greatest.
Least squares means for sensory panel ratings of rib
eye, top loin, and top sirloin steaks stratified by grade
are reported in Tables 7, 8, and 9, respectively. USDA
Choice and ungraded rib eye steaks received the least
(P < 0.05) ratings for overall like than did all other grades.
USDA Prime rib eye steaks received the greatest (P <
0.05) ratings for overall like, like tenderness, tenderness
level, like juiciness, and juiciness level. This differs from
Brooks et al. (2000) and Voges et al. (2007), which did
not find any differences for rib eye steaks across quality
grade groups, other than like flavor. No differences
were found among grade groups for top loin steaks,
which agrees with Brooks et al. (2000) and Voges et al.
Table 9. Least squares means ± SE for sensory panel ratings for food service top sirloin steaks stratified by USDA
grade group1
USDA grade group
Prime
Top Choice
Low Choice
Select
Ungraded
Sensory rating
(n = 15)
(n = 15)
(n = 19)
(n = 11)
(n = 8)
P-value
Overall like/dislike
6.9b (±0.2)
6.7b (±0.2)
7.0b (±0.2)
6.7b (±0.3)
7.9a (±0.3)
0.0308
Tenderness like/dislike
6.7 (±0.3)
6.5 (±0.3)
7.1 (±0.2)
6.6 (±0.3)
7.5 (±0.4)
0.1377
Tenderness level
6.7 (±0.2)
6.5 (±0.3)
7.2 (±0.2)
6.6 (±0.3)
7.3 (±0.3)
0.1905
Flavor like/dislike
6.8b (±0.2)
6.7b (±0.2)
6.8b (±0.2)
6.9b (±0.3)
7.8a (±0.3)
0.0278
Flavor level
6.6 (±0.2)
6.8 (±0.2)
6.7 (±0.2)
6.7 (±0.3)
7.6 (±0.3)
0.1390
Juiciness like/dislike
6.7b (±0.2)
6.5b (±0.2)
6.9b (±0.2)
6.8b (±0.3)
7.7a (±0.3)
0.0332
Juiciness
6.7 (±0.2)
6.6 (±0.2)
6.8 (±0.2)
6.9 (±0.3)
7.1 (±0.3)
0.7102
a,bLeast squares means in the same column without common superscript letters differ (P < 0.05).
1Sensory panel ratings for like/dislike: 10 = like extremely, 1 = dislike extremely; tenderness: 10 = very tender, 1 = not at all tender; juiciness: 10 = very juicy,
1 = not at all juicy; flavor: 10 = extreme amount, 1 = none at all.
Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by John Hutcheson on May 12, 2013
1013
National Beef Tenderness Survey–2010
Table 10. Least squares means and SE for WarnerBratzler shear values (N) for food service steaks
stratified by USDA quality grade
USDA grade
Prime
Top Choice
Low Choice
Select
Ungraded
Mean, N
SE
25.1c
0.8
27.4b
0.8
26.6bc
0.7
30.6a
0.8
31.9a
1.4
<0.0001
P-value
a–cLeast squares means without common superscript letters differ (P < 0.05).
(2007), which did not find any differences across grades
for sensory panel ratings. Ungraded top sirloin steaks
received the greatest (P < 0.05) ratings for overall like,
like flavor, and like juiciness than other grades, which
may be attributed to tenderization and enhancement
practices. This differs from Voges et al. (2007), which
found that Prime top sirloin steaks received the greatest
ratings for like tenderness and juiciness level.
The WBS values for food service steaks stratified
according to USDA quality grade group are reported in
Table 10. Prime, Top Choice, and Low Choice steaks
had lower (P < 0.05) WBS values than did Select or
ungraded steaks. Grade-related differences in sensory
tenderness ratings for the food service steaks were
observed only for the rib eye steaks (Table 7) and not
for the top loin (Table 8) or top sirloin (Table 9) steaks.
Brooks et al. (2000) reported grade-related differences
in WBS values for rib eye steaks but not for the top loin
or top sirloin steaks.
Overall Assessment of Current Beef Tenderness
Most steaks evaluated in this study were considered
tender. When compared with previous surveys, not all
WBS values decreased; however, all of the WBS values
were similar numerically to those in the 2006 survey. This
may be due to increased attention given to steaks from
the round after the last survey and a possible plateau of
beef tenderness. Numerous programs focusing on beef
tenderness are evident and will continue to play a role in
maximizing beef tenderness and consumer satisfaction.
In general, tenderness values for the current survey,
along with Voges et al. (2007), appear to be improved
(numerically lower WBS values, greater sensory panel
ratings, fewer steaks above certain WBS threshold
values) compared with those reported by Morgan et al.
(1991) and Brooks et al. (2000), which may indicate a
general shift in palatability in the United States over the
past decade. This appears to have happened in Canada,
where Juárez et al. (2012) reported major improvements
in beef palatability from 2001 to 2010, so with similar
production and processing schemes between these 2
North American countries, it may be that each survey
supports the findings of the other.
LITERATURE CITED
Anderson, M. J., S. M. Lonergan, C. A. Fedler, K. J. Prusa, J. M.
Binning, and E. Huff-Lonergan. 2012. Profile of biochemical
traits influencing tenderness of muscles from the beef round.
Meat Sci. 91:247–254.
Belew, J. B., J. C. Brooks, D. R. McKenna, and J. W. Savell. 2003.
Warner-Bratzler shear evaluations of 40 bovine muscles. Meat
Sci. 64:507–512.
Brooks, J. C., J. B. Belew, D. B. Griffin, B. L. Gwartney, D. S. Hale,
W. R. Henning, D. D. Johnson, J. B. Morgan, F. C. Parrish Jr.,
J. O. Reagan, and J. W. Savell. 2000. National Beef Tenderness
Survey–1998. J. Anim. Sci. 78:1852–1860.
Canadian Cattlemen’s Association and Beef Information Centre.
2010. National Beef Quality Audit: 2009 Retail Beef
Satisfaction Benchmark. A Beef Research Cluster Initiative,
Canadian Cattlemen’s Association and Agriculture and AgriFood Canada. Accessed Mar. 22, 2011. http://www.cattle.ca/
media/file/original/882_T3166_Retail_Benchmark_09_9.pdf.
Carmack, C. F., C. L. Kastner, M. E. Dikeman, J. R. Schwenke, and
C. M. Garcia Zepeda. 1995. Sensory evaluation of beef-flavorintensity, tenderness, and juiciness among major muscles. Meat
Sci. 39:143–147.
Guelker, M. R. 2011. Tenderness assessment of beef steaks from
US foodservice and retail establishments using Warner-Bratzler
shear and sensory panel ratings. MS thesis, Texas A&M Univ.,
College Station.
Industry-Wide Cooperative Meat Identification Standards Committee.
2003. Uniform retail meat identity standards. Cattlemen’s Beef
Board and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Centennial,
CO. Accessed Feb. 17, 2010. http://www.beefretail.org/
CmDocs/BeefRetail/URMIS/Urmiscompletefile.pdf.
Juárez, M., M. Klassen, I. L. Larsen, and J. L. Aalhus. 2012. Canadian
Beef Tenderness Survey 2001–2011. Paper 191 in Proc. 58th Int.
Congr. Meat Sci. Technol., Montreal, Canada.
Kolle, B. K., D. R. McKenna, and J. W. Savell. 2004. Methods to increase tenderness of individual muscles from beef rounds when
cooked with dry or moist heat. Meat Sci. 68:145–154.
Kolle, D. S., and J. W. Savell. 2003. Using Activa™ TG-RM to bind
beef muscles after removal of excessive seam fat between the m.
longissimus thoracis and m. spinalis dorsi and heavy connective tissue from within the m. infraspinatus. Meat Sci. 64:27–33.
McKeith, F. K., D. L. De Vol, R. S. Miles, P. J. Bechtel, and T. R.
Carr. 1985. Chemical and sensory properties of thirteen major
beef muscles. J. Food Sci. 50:869–872.
Morgan, J. B., J. W. Savell, D. S. Hale, R. K. Miller, D. B. Griffin,
H. R. Cross, and S. D. Shackelford. 1991. National Beef
Tenderness Survey. J. Anim. Sci. 69:3274–3283.
Mueller, S. L., D. A. King, B. E. Baird, D. R. McKenna, W. N.
Osburn, and J. W. Savell. 2006. In-home consumer evaluations
of individual muscles from beef rounds subjected to tenderization treatments. Meat Sci. 74:272–280.
National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. 2006. Executive Summary:
2005 National Beef Tenderness Survey. Cattlemen’s Beef
Board and National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Centennial,
CO. Accessed Aug. 23, 2012. http://beefresearch.org/CMDocs/
BeefResearch/2005%20National%20Beef%20Tenderness%20
Survey.pdf.
Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by John Hutcheson on May 12, 2013
1014
Guelker et al.
Paterson, B. C., and F. C. Parrish Jr. 1986. A sensory panel and
chemical analysis of certain beef chuck muscles. J. Food Sci.
51:876–879.
Powell, L., K. L. Nicholson, D. Huerta-Montauti, R. K. Miller, and J.
W. Savell. 2011. Constraints on establishing threshold levels for
Warner-Bratzler shear-force values based on consumer sensory
ratings for seven beef muscles. Anim. Prod. Sci. 51:959–966.
Ramsbottom, J. M., E. J. Standine, and C. H. Koonz. 1945.
Comparative tenderness of representative beef muscles. J. Food
Sci. 10:497–508.
Shackelford, S. D., J. B. Morgan, H. R. Cross, and J. W. Savell. 1991.
Identification of threshold levels for Warner-Bratzler shear
force in beef top loin steaks. J. Muscle Foods 2:289–296.
Strydom, P. E., L. Liebenberg, L. Mosimanyana, and M. Hope-Jones.
2012. South African Beef Quality Audit. Paper 297 in Proc.
58th Int. Congr. Meat Sci. Technol., Montreal, Canada.
Sullivan, G. A., and C. R. Calkins. 2011. Ranking beef muscles for
Warner-Bratzler shear force and trained sensory panel ratings
from published literature. J. Food Qual. 34:195–203.
U.S. Department of Agriculture. 2010. Institutional meat purchase
specifications for fresh beef products: Fresh beef series 100.
USDA, Agric. Market. Serv., Washington, DC. Accessed Sept.
27, 2010. http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocNa
me=STELDEV3003281.
Voges, K. L., C. L. Mason, J. C. Brooks, R. J. Delmore, D. B. Griffin,
D. S. Hale, W. R. Henning, D. D. Johnson, C. L. Lorenzen,
R. J. Maddock, R. K. Miller, J. B. Morgan, B. E. Baird, B. L.
Gwartney, and J. W. Savell. 2007. National Beef Tenderness
Survey–2006: Assessment of Warner-Bratzler shear and sensory panel ratings for beef from US retail and foodservice establishments. Meat Sci. 77:357–364.
Von Seggern, D. D., C. R. Calkins, D. D. Johnson, J. E. Brickler,
and B. L. Gwartney. 2005. Muscle profiling: Characterizing the
muscles of the beef chuck and round. Meat Sci. 71:39–51.
Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by John Hutcheson on May 12, 2013
References
This article cites 16 articles, 2 of which you can access for free at:
http://www.journalofanimalscience.org/content/91/2/1005#BIBL
Downloaded from www.journalofanimalscience.org by John Hutcheson on May 12, 2013