Beef tenderness

Howard, R.D., and M.D. Judge. 1968. Comparison of sarcomere length to other predictors of beef tenderness. J. Food Sci. 33 456-460. 

Peng, Y., and J. H. Wu. 2008. Hyperspectral scattering profiles for prediction of beef tenderness. ASABE Paper No. 080004. Rhode Island convention center, Rhode, USA. 

Subbiah, J., C.R. Calkins, A. Samal, and G.E. Meyer. 2008. Visible/near-infrared hyperspectral imaging for beef tenderness prediction. Journal of Computers and Electronics in Agriculture. 64 225-233. 

Deatherage, F. E., and Reiman, W. 1946. Measurement of beef tenderness and tenderization of beef by tendency process. Food Research 11, 525. 

Naganathan GK, Grimes LM, Subbiah J, Calkins CR, Samal A, Meyer GE. Visible/near-inffared hyperspectral imaging for beef tenderness prediction. Comput Electron Agr 2008 64 225-33. 

The lambda type is nongelling, and functions as a thickner. Iota-carrageenan has been recommended (45) for use in formulating low fat ground beef due to its abihty to retain moisture, especially through a freeze—thaw cycle which is typical for ground beef patties. Oat bran and oat fiber can also be used to improve moisture retention and mouth feel. Modified starches can be used as binders to maintain juiciness and tenderness in low fat meat products. Maltodextrins (dextrose equivalent less than 20) may be used as binders up to 3.5% in finished meat products. Other carbohydrates such as konjac flour, alginate, microcrystalline cellulose, methylceUulose, and carboxymethylceUulose have also been used in low fat meat products (see CELLULOSE ETHERs). 

Who hasn t been tantalized and impressed by the delectable, eyecatching specialities prepared with puff pastry Chocolate napoleans, Beef Wellington, baked brie, pate en croute, etc. While the secret of these culinary delights may seem more of an art than a science, professional pastry chefs know the chemistry necessary to create the flaky, tender pastry for these delicacies. 

Soy proteins are used extensively in meat and meat products by the military, the school lunch program and consumers to save money. Their ultimate acceptability is equally dependent upon the nutritional, chemical, sensory and shelf life changes which occur when they are added. Soy proteins in meat products such as ground beef inhibit rancidity, improve tenderness, increase moisture retention, decrease cooking shrink, fat dispersion during cooking and have no important effect on microbiological condition. Concomittantly, inordinate amounts of added soy protein may cause the meat product to be too soft, exhibit an undesirable flavor and may lead to a decreased PER and a deficiency in B-vitamins and trace minerals. In emulsified meat products, soy protein effectively binds water but does not emulsify fat as well as salt soluble muscle protein. Prudent incorporation of plant proteins can result in an improvement of the quality of the meat product with inconsequential adverse effects. 

Wolf (8) attributed the water binding by soy flour not only to the presence of the proteins but also to the polysaccharides which are present. Kotula and Rough (6) demonstrated that ground beef patties extended with soy flour or concentrate were more tender than the all beef patties. Berry et al. (7 ) found patties made with soy flour or concentrate to be more tender than all-beef patties or patties formulated with soy isolate. The dilution... 

When structured soy protein fiber was added to fermented salami at 15 or 30% levels, trained sensory panels found the flavor to be undesirable, whereas a 116-member untrained panel found the product containing 30% soy flour to be undesirable in flavor, tenderness and overall desirability (26). The flavor of beef patties containing 20% soy protein flour or concentrate was rated about equal to all beef patties by a 52-member panel, whereas patties containing 30% were scored lower by the panel (6). Berry et al. (7) found the characteristic "soy-like" flavor to be more... 

A few reports in the literature describe the effects of using peanut protein in comminuted meat systems such as meat loaves (, 64), frankfurters (6 ), and ground beef patties 66). In some instances, peanut protein either produced beneficial effects (e.g., increased tenderness and cohesiveness, 66) or no adverse effects from a sensory, physical, or microbial standpoint ( ). 

Ground beef has a typical fat level of 20% to 30%. Consumers can select retail ground beef with decreased levels of fat however, they usually perceive leaner grinds as being less palatable. To some extent this is true. In order to assure qualities such as texture, mouthfeel, tenderness, juiciness, flavor, appearance, and overall acceptability, a certain fat content is necessary in ground beef. The fat level can affect the texture of cooked ground-beef patties. 

Li, J, Tan, J., and Shatadal, P. 2001. Classification of tough and tender beef by image texture analysis. 

The description label to be placed on the vacuum-pack bag must state that the meat is organic. It must include the reference number which relates to the place of origin and also the date of packing and maximum life date within which the product must be retail packed or sold. Beef is often given up to 4 weeks window life in the vacuum bag to improve maturity and tenderness, as long as it is held at suitable temperatures (0°C). 

The amount of stroma proteins is less in fish muscles (3-5%) than it is In beef or rabbit muscles (15-18%). This may explain why raw fish fillets are acceptable in Japanese dishes, whereas beef, rabbit and pork are rarely served raw. According to Fennema et al. (9.), tenderness is primarily related to collagen content, while toughness and water-holding capacity are associated with the myofibrillar proteins. Many papers on cooked meat mention both tenderness and toughness, while those on cooked fish note the problems of toughness rather than tenderness. This also might be related to the difference in content of the stroma proteins. 

Beef is aged at 4°C and is tenderized. A process involving surface irradiation controls microbial growth and permits somewhat higher temperatures to accelerate tenderization. 

The concentration of ozone in such tenderizing rooms, according to Ewell (11, 12), is of the order of 0.1 p.p.m. by volume. Elford and Van den Ende (6) have shown that ozone as low as 0.04 p.p.m. can destroy bacteria if the relative humidity is 60 to 90%. Mallmann and Churchill (20), experimenting with naturally contaminated beef, also showed that 0.1 p.p.m. by volume of ozone would retard the growth of the organisms. 

Two enzymatic systems, i.e., calpain and cathepsin influence tenderization of meat. The activity of calpain reduces under high pressure. The activity of p-calpain is also reduced during ageing (Ouali, 1990). Qin et al. (2001) showed that high-pressure treatment (100-300 MPa, 10 min) of beef resulted in a decrease in the total calpain activity however, the acid phosphatase and alkaline phosphatase activities were not significantly reduced. Homma et al. (1995) found that the total activity of calpain in pressurized muscle increased due to a reduction in the level of calpastatin because of its pressure sensitivity this in turn resulted in meat tenderization. 

Joseph, R. L. 1996. Very fast chilling of beef and tenderness—A report from an EU concerted action. Meat Science 43 S217-S227. 

Solomon, M. B., M. N. Liu, J. Patel, E. Paroczay, J. Eastridge, and S. W. Coleman. 2008. Tenderness improvement in fresh or frozen/thawed beef steaks treated with hydrodynamic pressure processing. Journal of Muscle Foods 19 98-109. 

Tischer, R. G., H. Hurwicz, and J. A. ZoeUner. 1953. Heat processing of beef. IB. Objective measurement of changes in tenderness, drained juice, and sterilizing value during heat processing. Journal of Food Science 18 539-554. 

Tuomy, J. M., R. J. Lechnir, and T. MiUer. 1963. Effect of cooking temperature and time on the tenderness of beef. Food Technology 17 1457-1460. 

Table I, based on Mighton s (21) studies, shows that the average sugar content of cured meat varies from 0.10% in canned corn beef to 2.32% in cooked bacon. Gross (11) later analyzed a number of commercial hams produced by six different packers and obtained on the open market. The average sugar contents were tender smoked, 0.65% ready-to-eat smoked, 0.74% boned and rolled in transparent casings, 0.31% and canned, 0.75%.

---