Canadian Beef Tenderness Survey: 2001–201127 April 2013
Changes in the animal population, production systems, carcase processing and distribution and handling before the meat went on display could be responsible for improvements in tenderness in Canadian beef.
These were the findings of a survey of Canadia beef carried out between 2001 and 2011.
The extensive survey across Canada by Manuel Juárez, Ivy L. Larsen, Jennifer L. Aalhus from Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada and Mark Klassen from the Canadian Cattlemen's Association was developed collecting retail beef samples in 2001 (702 steaks) and 2011 (602 steaks).
The results of the study have been published in the Canadian Journal of Animal Science.
The samples - strip loin, top sirloin, inside round and cross-rib steaks - were evaluated for instrumental tenderness using standard procedures for sampling, storage, cooking and texture evaluation.
New equations were also developed in order to compare the results obtained in these studies with consumer thresholds developed in Canada and the United States of America.
In general, retail steaks collected in 2011 weighed less and showed higher fat thickness than those from 2001.
Regarding tenderness, a significant improvement was observed, especially for strip loin and top sirloin steaks between 2001 and 2011.
Using US threshold categories, the percentage of “tender” samples improved for the strip loin (2001=89 per cent; 2011=99 per cent), top sirloin (2001=70 per cent; 2011=87 per cent), inside round (2001=52 per cent; 2011=61 per cent) and cross-rib (2001=65 per cent; 2011=76 per cent) steaks.
Similarly, the percentage of “tough” samples shifted from five, eight, 27 and 13 per cent for the strip loin, top sirloin, inside round and cross-rib steaks in 2001 to one, five, 13, and eight per cent, respectively, in 2011.
Similar improvements were observed when using the more descriptive four-category Canadian threshold system.
The researchers said that these improvements may be due to changes in the animal population, production systems, carcass processing and distribution/handling prior to display in Canada.
Aalhus, J. L., Jeremiah, L. E., Dugan, M. E. R., Larsen, I. L., Best, D. R., Thacker, R., Costello, F. and Gibson, L. L. 2000a. Beef tenderness strategy. A final report to the Canadian Cattlemen's Association. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada. Lacombe Research Centre, Lacombe, AB.
Aalhus J L, Jeremiah L E, Dugan M E R, Larsen I L, Gibson L L. 2004. Establishment of consumer thresholds for beef quality attributes. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 84: 631-638 Abstract.
Aalhus J L, Jones S D M, Tong A K W, Jeremiah L E, Robertson W M, Gibson L L. 1992. The combined effects of time on feed, electrical stimulation and aging on beef quality. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 72: 525-535 Abstract.
Aalhus J L, Larsen I L, Dubeski P L, Jeremiah L E. 2000b. Improved beef tenderness using a modified on-line carcass suspension method with, or without low voltage electrical stimulation. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 80: 51-58 Abstract.
Agricultural Marketing Service. 2010. Institutional meat purchase specifications. USDA Agriculture Marketing Service. Effective March 2010. [Online] Available: http://www.ams.usda.gov/AMSv1.0/getfile?dDocName=STELDEV3003281.
American Meat Science Association. 1995. Research guidelines for cookery, sensory evaluation and instrumental tenderness measurements of fresh meat. National Live Stock and Meat Board, ed. AMSA, Chicago, IL.
Bejerholm, C. and Aaslyng, M. D. 2004. Cooking of meat. Pages 343–349 in W. K. Jensen, C. Devine, and M. Dikeman, eds. Encyclopedia of meat sciences. Elsevier Academic Press, Amsterdam, the Netherlands.
Belew J B, Brooks J C, McKenna D R, Savell J W. 2003. Warner–Bratzler shear evaluations of 40 bovine muscles. Meat Sci. 64: 507-512 CrossRef.
Brooks J C, Belew J B, Griffin D B, Gwartney B L, Hale D S, Henning W R, Johnson D D, Morgan J B, Parrish F C, Reagan J O, others. 2000. National beef tenderness survey – 1998. J. Anim. Sci. 78: 1852-1860 .
Canada Gazette. 1992. Part II: Livestock and Poultry Carcass Grading Regulations. Part III. Grade names and grade standards for beef carcasses. [Online] Available: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/regulations/SOR-92–541/page–1.html [2011 Nov 17].
Canfax. 2011. Annual report. In Canfax-Research-Services, ed. Calgary, AB.
Christensen M, Ertbjerg P, Failla S, Sañudo C, Richardson R I, Nute G R, Olleta J L, Panea B, Albertí P, Juárez M, others. 2011. Relationship between collagen characteristics, lipid content and raw and cooked texture of meat from young bulls of fifteen European breeds. Meat Sci 87: 61-65 CrossRef.
Delgado E F, Aguiar A P, Ortega E M M, Spoto M H F, Castillo C J C. 2006. Brazilian consumers’ perception of tenderness of beef steaks classified by shear force and taste. Sci. Agric. 63: 232-239 CrossRef.
Dugan M E R, Aalhus J L. 1998. Beef tenderness: Within longissimus thoracis et lumborum steak variation as affected by cooking method. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 78: 711-714 Abstract.
Guelker, M. R., Haneklaus, A. N., Brooks, J. C., Carr, C. C., Delmore, R. J., Griffin, D. B., Hale, D. S., Harris, K. B., Hilton, G. G., Johnson, D. D. and others. 2012. National beef tenderness survey – 2010: Shear-force values and sensory-panel ratings for U.S. retail and food service beef. Proc. 58th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology, Montreal, QC.
Hergenreder, J. 2011. The effects of freezing and thawing rates on tenderness and sensory quality of beef subprimals. University of Nebraska–Lincoln, Lincoln, NE.
Janz, J. A. M. and Aalhus, J. L. 2002. The complexity of measuring beef tenderness using Warner–Bratzler shear methodology for whole muscle samples. Pages 37–64 in T. Nakano and L. Ozimek, eds. Food science and product technology. Research Signpost, Kerala, India.
Jeremiah L E, Dugan M E R, Aalhus J L, Gibson L L. 2003a. Assessment of the chemical and cooking properties of the major beef muscles and muscle groups. Meat Sci. 65: 985-992 CrossRef.
Jeremiah L E, Dugan M E R, Aalhus J L, Gibson L L. 2003b. Assessment of the relationship between chemical components and palatability of major beef muscles and muscle groups. Meat Sci. 65: 1013-1019 CrossRef.
Jeremiah L E, Gibson L L, Aalhus J L, Dugan M E R. 2003c. Assessment of palatability attributes of the major beef muscles. Meat Sci. 65: 949-958 CrossRef.
Juárez, M., Aldai, N., López–Campos, Ó., Dugan, M., Uttaro, B. and Aalhus, J. 2012a. Beef texture and juiciness. Pages 177–206 in Y. H. Hui, ed. Handbook of meat and meat processing. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL.
Juárez M, Basarab J A, Baron V S, Valera M, Larsen I L, Aalhus J L. 2012b. Quantifying the relative contribution of ante- and post-mortem factors to the variability in beef texture. Animal 6: 1878-1887 CrossRef.
Juárez M, Larsen I L, Gibson L L, Robertson W M, Dugan M E R, Aldai N, Aalhus J L. 2010. Extended ageing time and temperature effects on quality of sub-primal cuts of boxed beef. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 90: 361-370 Abstract.
Kim J H, Seong P N, Cho S H, Jeong D W, In T S, Jeong J H, Park B Y, Lee J M, Kim D H, Ahn C N. 2008. Tenderness survey of branded Hanwoo beef – 2007: Assessment of Warner–Bratzler shear for Hanwoo beef by quality grade and subprimal cuts. Korean J. Food Sci. Anim. Resour. 28: 283-288 CrossRef.
Lagerstedt Å, Enfält L, Johansson L, Lundström K. 2008. Effect of freezing on sensory quality, shear force and water loss in beef M. longissimus dorsi. Meat Sci. 80: 457-461 CrossRef.
Lepetit J, Culioli J. 1994. Mechanical properties of meat. Meat Sci. 36: 203-237 CrossRef.
Lyford C, Thompson J, Polkinghorne R, Miller M, Nishimura T, Neath K, Allen P, Belasco E. 2010. Is willingness to pay (WTP) for beef quality grades affected by consumer demographics and meat consumption preferences? Australas. Agribus. Rev. 18: 1-17.
Markus S B, Aalhus J L, Janz J A M, Larsen I L. 2011. A survey comparing meat quality attributes of beef from credence attribute-based production systems. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 91: 283-294 Abstract.
Martin A H, Fredeen H T, Weiss G M. 1970. Effects of sampling location and carcass fatness on tenderness of steaks from the longissimus dorsi of yearling Shorthorn bulls. Can. J. Anim. Sci. 50: 235-241 Abstract.
Miller M F, Carr M A, Ramsey C B, Crockett K L, Hoover L C. 2001. Consumer thresholds for establishing the value of beef tenderness. J. Anim. Sci. 79: 3062-3068.
Morgan J B, Savell J W, Hale D S, Miller R K, Griffin D B, Cross H R, Shackelford S D. 1991. National beef tenderness survey. J. Anim. Sci. 69: 3274-3283.
Rodas-González A, Huerta-Leidenz N, Jerez-Timaure N, Miller M F. 2009. Establishing tenderness thresholds of Venezuelan beef steaks using consumer and trained sensory panels. Meat Sci. 83: 218-223 CrossRef.
SAS Institute, Inc. 2003. SAS® user's guide: Statistics. SAS for Windows, version 9.1. SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC.
Shackelford S D, Morgan J B, Cross H R, Savell J W. 1991. Identification of threshold levels for Warner-Bratzler shear force in beef top loin steaks. J. Muscle Foods 2: 289-296 CrossRef. Shanks B C, Wulf D M, Maddock R J. 2002. Technical note: The effect of freezing on Warner–Bratzler shear force values of beef longissimus steaks across several postmortem aging periods. J. Anim. Sci. 80: 2122-2125.
Szczesniak A S. 2002. Texture is a sensory property. Food Qual. Pref. 13: 215-225 CrossRef.
Troy D J, Kerry J P. 2010. Consumer perception and the role of science in the meat industry. Meat Sci. 86: 214-226 CrossRef.
Voges K L, Mason C L, Brooks J C, Delmore R J, Griffin D B, Hale D S, Henning W R, Johnson D D, Lorenzen C L, Maddock R J, others. 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 CrossRef.
Wheeler T L, Shackelford S D, Johnson L P, Miller M F, Miller R K, Koohmaraie M. 1997. A comparison of Warner–Bratzler shear force assessment within and among institutions. J. Anim. Sci. 75: 2423-2432.
Winger, R. and Hagyard, C. 1999. Juiciness – Its importance and contributing factors. Pages 94–116 in A. M. Pearson and T. R. Dutson, eds. Quality attributes and their measurement in meat, poultry and fish products. Aspen Publishing, Gaithersburg, MA.
Further ReadingYou can view the full report by clicking here.