ffe n a he es t r be bee . Ra n, o lor ens ings revealed more substantial fading (P b 0.05) in traditional patties compared with innovative style patties. t removing certain muscles from the ground chuck mix does not cause detrimental chucks d new
Beef M rom th ration can greatly im15% of retail beef is surface discoloration, industry totaling apMeat Science 106 (2015) 50–54
Contents lists available at ScienceDirect
Meat Sc l sof linear footspace in self service retail meat cases was devoted to ground beef in 2010, up from 12% in 2008 (National Meat Case Study, 2010). Additionally, whole muscle beef cuts commanded 28% of proximately US $1 billion (Smith, Belk, Sofos, Tatum, & Williams, 2000). Therefore, meat retailers may be interested in the impact of excluding muscles on the days of viable shelf life of the resultingburgers.
Ground beef is the largest percentage of all beef items consumed at home or sold into foodservice (Lundeen, 2011). Approximately 42% of beef is consumed as ground beef (Davis & Lin, 2005). Fourteen percent 2010); therefore, a change in the rate of discolo pact consumer-purchasing decisions. Nearly discounted in price before it can be sold due to leading to annual revenue losses in the meatwas the decrease in ground chuck available for “premium grinds” which are specialty blends that can be differentiated based on flavor, texture, nutrition, and/or management claims. Examples of this include subprimal specific and USDA quality grade grinds such as brisket grinds for specific fatty acid composition or Prime muscles being utilized as steaks (Von Seggern et al., 2005). Using muscles with different color stabilities in ground beef can dramatically affect shelf life as determined by discoloration and oxidation (Raines, Hunt, & Unruh, 2010). At the point of sale, meat color is the most important factor in determining quality (Troy & Kerry,footspace in 2010, down from 30% in 2004 (N 2010). This increase in demand for ground ⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 573 8822452; fax: +
E-mail address: LorenzenC@missouri.edu (C.L. Lorenze http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.03.022 0309-1740/© 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd.e chuck for individual 0/head in market value quences of this practice (McCarty, 2011).
In addition, differences exist in functional characteristics, such as color, heme-iron content and pH, between the most popular chuck sale and gain an approximate US $50 to $7 (Von Seggern et al., 2005). One of the conse1. Introduction
From 1993 to 1998, the price of 25–26%, prompting research to fin “underutilized” cuts (Von Seggern,
Gwartney, 2005). The success of the led processors to isolate muscles f© 2015 Published by Elsevier Ltd. and rounds decreased ways to market these s, Johnson, Brickler, & uscle Profiling Project poor economic situation, which caused many consumers to “trade down” from higher priced steaks and roasts to lower cost items, such as ground beef (McCarty, 2011). Due to the change in consumer purchasing patterns, the price of ground beef increased in comparison to whole muscle beef cuts. In May 2011, the price of steak had increased by 6.3% and ground beef by 13.6% in comparison to May 2010consequences in resulting ground chuck patties.Oxidation
Beef chuck muscle This study demonstrated thaBeef muscle isolation has no detrimental e beef programs
C.E. Ohman a, B.R. Wiegand a, I.U. Gruen b, C.L. Lorenze a Division of Animal Sciences, University of Missouri, Columbia 65211, United States b Food Science Program, University of Missouri, Columbia 65211, United States a b s t r a c ta r t i c l e i n f o
Received 9 June 2014
Received in revised form 9 January 2015
Accepted 26 March 2015
Available online 3 April 2015
This experiment evaluated w from ground beef mix chang harvested from twenty-fou methods. Resulting ground color and oxidative stability oxymyoglobin concentratio odor, color and percent disco tive style patties for TBARS, s j ourna l homepage: www.eational Meat Case Study, beef was a result of the 1 573 8826827. n).ct on premium ground ,⁎ ther isolating certain muscles from the chuck for retail sale and excluding them he number of days that ground chuck is acceptable to consumers. Chucks were ef steers, and were allocated to either traditional or innovative fabrication f patties were stored in retail simulation conditions for 7 days to determine w patties were analyzed for thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS), bjective color by Minolta Chromameter, and by a trained sensory panel for ation. No differences (P N 0.05) were observed between traditional and innovaory odor or color, or oxymyoglobin concentration. Minolta Chromameter readience ev ie r .com/ locate /meatsc iground beef.
The objective of this study was to determine the impact of removing high value muscles from ground chuck on the overall odor and color stability of ground chuck at four different retail storage time periods. 51C.E. Ohman et al. / Meat Science 106 (2015) 50–542. Materials and methods 2.1. Ground beef manufacture
Twenty-four beef steers were slaughtered at the University of
Missouri-Columbia in groups of six. Beef carcasses were chilled for 48 h postmortem and right chucks were assigned to a traditional method (TRA) and left chucks to an innovative method (INN). TRA included trim from the neck and shank, half of the clod (IMPS 114) and half of the chuck roll (IMPS 116A; USDA, 2010). INN included trim from the neck and shank, half of the clod heart (IMPS 114E), half of the chuck eye roll (IMPS 116D), and excluded the infraspinatus (IMPS 114D), supraspinatus (IMPS 116B), teres major (IMPS 114F) and serratus ventralis (IMPS 116G; USDA, 2010). The resulting sample was first ground through a 10 mm plate and then through a 4.5 mm plate using a LEM #8 .35 HP Grinder (LEM Products, West Chester, OH, USA). Each pattywas approximately 113 g and 0.95 cm thick andwas hand pressed using a LEMProfessional Burger Press (LEMProducts,West Chester, OH,