Katie R. Lybarger

The objective of this study was to evaluate the palatability of 3 plant-based ground beef alternatives (GBA) in comparison to ground beef under real-world hamburger and taco scenarios. The 3 plant-based GBA alternatives used represented a modern GBA sold at retail (RGBA), a modern GBA sold in foodservice (FGBA), and a traditional soy-based GBA (TGBA). Additionally, 80% lean ground beef was evaluated. Consumers (N=240; n=120 per panel type) evaluated samples for juiciness, tenderness, texture, beef flavor, overall flavor, overall liking, purchase intent,and purchase price and rated traits as either acceptable or unacceptable. For hamburger panels, consumers were served samples on buns and were given the option to add cheese, lettuce, pickles, ketchup, and/or mustard. For taco panels, samples were seasoned with a taco seasoning blend and served on flour tortillas, with consumers given the option to add cheese, lettuce, and/or tomatoes. In both scenarios, ground beef was rated higher (P0.05) for tenderness to FGBA and RGBA. Additionally, a higher (P<0.05) percentage of ground beef samples were rated acceptable overall and for flavor characteristics than all 3 GBA. Few differences were found between FGBA and RGBA for any palatability characteristics evaluated. TGBA was rated lower (P0.05) to only RGBA for beef flavor and overall flavor liking within hamburger panels. These results indicate that GBA currently available to consumers do not have improved palatability characteristics when used as an ingredient in a taco or hamburger scenario.

The objective of this study was to identify the threshold for color and discoloration for consumers to purchase ground beef and to determine the best objective measurement to predict consumer purchase intent. This study was designed in 2 phases, with Phase 1 requiring consumers to evaluate ground beef samples of multiple days of display simultaneously, and Phase 2 having consumers evaluate samples of only a single day of display. Ground beef packages (80% lean) were evaluated for overall appearance liking and purchase intent (yes/no) by consumers (n=216 and 318). Additionally, packages were evaluated for L*, a*, b*, calculated percentage of metmyoglobin, oxymyoglobin, chroma, hue angle, and trained sensory panel redness and discoloration scores. Models showed that each of the objective measures evaluated were predictors (P<0.05) of consumer purchasing intent. All logistic regression equations (P<0.01) had high R2 values of 0.48 to 0.86 (Phase 1) and 0.26 to 0.65 (Phase 2) and correctly classified 78.1% to 90.1% (Phase 1) and 70.5% to 84.0% (Phase 2) of samples as would/would not purchase. Linear regression equations predicting consumer overall appearance ratings with objective measures also resulted in significant (P<0.01) models, with R2 values of 0.57 to 0.93 and 0.35 to 0.54. The a* values of 21.6, 24.6, 28.3, and 30.5 (Phase 1) and 20.7, 26.2, 31.7, and 35.4 (Phase 2) correspond with consumers being 50%, 75%, 90%, and 95% likely to purchase the product at full price. However, if the product was discounted, the a* values were reduced to 17.9, 21.4, 25.0, and 27.4 (Phase 1) and 17.7, 22.7, 27.7, and 31.1 (Phase 2). The models generated from this study provide the ability to predict consumer willingness to purchase ground beef and provide ground beef processors an indication of potential consumer purchasing behaviors based upon objective values that are easy to measure.

Palatability traits of ribeye, strip loin, andtenderloin steaks were evaluated in a bone-in versus boneless scenario. Eatingquality of these cuts was also evaluated in a high quality (upper 2/3 USDAChoice) and a lower quality (USDA Select) product to evaluate the interactionsof marbling level and bone state. Subprimals were collected from both sides of12 beef carcasses per quality grade and aged for 28-d. Product was fabricatedinto 2.5-cm thick steaks and designated for either trained sensory analysis,consumer sensory analysis, Warner-Bratzler Shear Force (WBSF), or fat andmoisture determination. Results from trainedsensory analysis showed bone-in tenderloins and bone-in ribeyes as moreflavorful (P < 0.05) than boneless cuts from the same muscle. Bonestate had no effect (P > 0.05) on trained sensory initial juiciness,myofibrillar tenderness, and overall tenderness scores, or WBSF for any cut.Furthermore, tenderloin samples were rated higher (P < 0.05) bytrained sensory panelists for myofibrillar and overall tenderness than striploin and ribeye steaks, which were similar (P > 0.05). Bone state hadno impact (P > 0.05) on consumer tenderness and flavor ratings forany of the three cuts. But, bone-in strip loin samples were rated juicier andhigher (P < 0.05) overall than boneless strip loin steaks byconsumers. Tenderloin steaks were juicier, more tender, more flavorful, andrated higher overall (P < 0.05) than ribeyes and boneless strip loinsteaks by consumers. Moreover, there were no differences (P > 0.05)between strip loins and ribeyes for flavor liking by consumers and nodifference (P > 0.05) in overall liking rating between ribeyes andboneless strip loin steaks. Overall, bone status had a minimal impact on beefpalatability traits, providing evidence that eating quality is not greatlyimpacted by bone status for any of the cuts evaluated.