When consuming beef, what attributes do you prefer — tenderness, juiciness or flavor? Which one of these attributes are you willing to pay for? Tenderness has been proven to be the most important economic trait and quality factor because it is the trait consumers have demonstrated they are willing to pay for. Historically, the rib and loin have demanded a higher price over the chuck and round, because of their higher palatability attributes.
The first National Beef Tenderness survey, funded by industry checkoff dollars, was conducted in 1990 using the Warner-Bratzler shear (WBS) force, the industry standard, to measure tenderness values of beef cuts and trained sensory panels to indicate consumer perceptions. However, in successive studies, consumer sensory panels replaced trained panels to gain true consumer perception of tenderness. Results are now available from the 2010/2011 National Beef Tenderness Survey, the fourth in the series, to quantify the current status of tenderness.
In the current study, 8 to 12 supermarket stores from twelve major metropolitan areas were sampled and one food-service facility in five of the selected cities. Eight primary beef cuts from the retail case, some cut in varying methods (e.g. boneless, bone-in) and three primary foodservice beef cuts were the foundation of the study. Consumer sensory panels and WBS evaluations were conducted on all the cuts along with data recorded such as brand names, grades, aging times and marketing claims.
From the foodservice category, Top Loin Steaks had the highest percentage of steaks in the very tender category according to WBS values. In the retail setting, consumers rated the Top Blade Steak, the boneless Ribeye Steak, the boneless Top Loin Steak and the bone-in Top Loin Steak the highest in their “overall like” (includes tenderness, flavor and juiciness likes). The consumers rated the Top Blade Steak and the boneless Ribeye Steak the highest for tenderness.
The 2010/2011 survey concluded most steaks were considered tender and the WBS values were similar to the results found five years earlier in the 2005/2006 survey. Researchers attributed this to the increased prevalence of round cuts in the marketplace and possible plateau of beef tenderness. Factors that may have also played a role in the fixed tenderness value was less consistency in the aging of beef. Average aging times were down and the aging-day range was significantly wider in the current study. The percentage of some retail steaks aged less than 14 days (the industry-recommended minimum), was considerably higher in 2010/2011 than in 2005/2006. This was believed to be the result of retail stores increasing the featuring activity of beef in the store, to move product and draw consumers in the store to purchase beef during specials — thus a shorter in-store shelf time. Overall the less tender cuts were still found to be from the round. Conclusions drawn indicate the need for improved aging practices and increased consumer education on the proper preparation and cooking of beef from the round in efforts to enhance consumer satisfaction.
The executive summary of the 2010-2011 National Beef Tenderness Survey can be found at http://www.beefresearch.org/CMDocs/BeefResearch/Tenderness_survey_web2010.pdf These. survey results will be used by both the retail and foodservice sectors to benchmark the tenderness of U.S. beef.