An Analysis of Quality of Non-Traditional Beef Grind Material versus Traditional Beef Grind Material for Ground Beef Products
Type of Degreethesis
MetadataShow full item record
An experiment was conducted to evaluate quality differences between traditional and non-traditional grind materials. Three traditional grind sources (T) were compared with seven non-traditional grind sources (N): 7% fat (T1), 11% fat (T2), 16% fat (T3), and 6% fat (N1), 8% fat, (N2), 11% fat (N3), 20% fat (N4), 21% fat (N5), 28% fat (N6) and 29% fat (N7). Additionally, these grind materials were then classified into one of four grind types: Traditional (TR), Quality Grade (QG), Niche (NI) or Breed Specific (BS) for further anaylsis.. All grinds were then packaged in overwrapped foam trays (OW), clear chubs (CH), or overwrapped foam trays in a low oxygen modified atmosphere bag (MAP). Retail display was immediately conducted for 5 d on OW, CH was stored in dark storage for 3 d and MAP was stored in dark storage for 11 d and then placed in retail display for 5 d to simulate industry practices for each respective packaging treatment. Starting on the day packages were placed on display (d 0), 3 packages from each grind/package treatment were removed and frozen for further lab analysis. Also starting on d 0, 5 packages from each package/grind treatment were selected at random and color was evaluated daily with a Hunter Miniscan XE Plus. After completion of the retail display period, the frozen packages were thawed and samples were taken from each for evaluation of oxidative rancidity using TBARS and for Sensory evaluation of initial juiciness (IJ), sustained juiciness (SJ), cohesiveness (CO), beef flavor (BF), off flavor (OF), and cook loss (CL). Data were analyzed using the PROC GLM procedure of SAS. Between grinds, L* tended to increase with fat percentage and a* tended to decrease with the increase in fat percentage. No trends were seen in a* values relating to grinds. Between packaging, all treatments were different for L*, a* and b* (P<0.05). For days of display, all L* values were not different (P>0.05) until d 3 of retail display. For days on display, a* values were different (P<0.0001) and b* values all days were different (P<0.05) except d 2 and d 3 (P=0.06). Two of the highest percentage fat grinds, N5 and N7 had the greatest TBARS values but were not different (P=0.28) and the least TBARS value was N4, however this was not different than N3, N1, T1, T3 (P>0.05). Days 4 and 5 had the greatest values for TBARS (1.7 and 1.5 TBARS value, respectively), but were not different (P>0.05). Day 3 (1.3 TBARS value) was not different than d 5 (P=0.33), and d 0 to d 3 were not different (P>0.05). Between grinds, differences were seen (P<0.05) in all sensory attributes. Between package types, OW and CH had greater IJ (P<0.05) than MAP, while the inverse was true for OF values. CH had greater SJ (P<0.05) than MAP, with OW not being different than either. CH had greater CO (P<0.05) than MAP and OW which were not different (P>0.05). All BF values were different (P<0.05), with CH being greatest then OW and MAP, respectively. No differences were seen among packages for CL. For display day, d 0 and 3 were different (P<0.05) than day d 4 and 5, but neither were different than d 2 for IJ. D 0, 2, and 3 had greater values for SJ (P<0.05) than d 5, but none were different (P>0.05) from d 4. D 0 and 3 were different (P<0.05) but neither were different than d 2, 3, and 4 for CO. BF was lessened from d 0 to d 5 with d 5 being less (P<0.05) than d 0, 2, and 3. Additionally, OF was greater (P<0.05) at d 5 than d 0 and 2. Data indicates that factors in each grind beyond fat content as well as package and display time play roles in ground beef color stability, lipid oxidation and sensory characteristics. Differences are also shown when comparing grind types. For Thiobarbituric Acid Reactive Substances (TBARS) BS had the greatest value followed by QG then NI and finally TR, all of which were different (P<0.05). In regards to color, BS showed the greatest L* value followed by TR, QG, and finally NI, respectively. QG and TR were not different (P>0.05), but all others were significantly different (P<0.05). B* values were greatest for QG and TR (P>0.05), which were greater (P<0.05) than BS and NI. The later were not different from one another (P>0.05). Additionally there were significant (P<0.05) interactions of grind type by day and by packaging type for both a* and b*. For sensory traits, differences also existed. For IJ, TR, QG, and BS were not different (P>0.05) and juiciest, followed by NI which was not different (P>0.05) than QG and BS. TR, QG, and BS were also not different (P>0.05) and greatest for SJ. These were again followed by NI, which was not different than BS (P>0.05). BS and NI (P>0.05) were most cohesive, followed by QG which was not different (P>0.05) than NI. Finally TR was least cohesive, but not different (P>0.05) than QG. Beef flavor and off flavor were inverses. BS, QG, and TR had greatest beef flavor and least off flavor and not different from one another (P>0.05). NI has the greatest off flavor and least beef flavor. This shows differences do exist between traditional and non-traditional grind types.