Consumer thresholds for establishing the value of beef tenderness
Abstract
In the present study, a national consumer evaluation was conducted for beef tenderness on USDA Select strip loin steaks of known Warner-Bratzler shear (WBS) force values, ranging from tough (> 5.7 kg) to tender ( or = 86% consumer acceptability. Consumer acceptability for tenderness decreased from 86% at 4.3 kg for a "slightly tender" rating to 59% at 4.9 kg for a "slightly tough" rating. Data from the present study suggested that consumer WBS tenderness values of 4.9 kg would result in 100, 99, 94, 86, and 25% customer satisfaction for beef tenderness, respectively. Seventy-eight percent of the consumers would purchase steaks if the retailer guaranteed them to be tender. The retail steak value differences found in this study would result in the opportunity for a premium to be paid for a guaranteed tender ( 5.7 kg) classification. A premium of $66.96 could be paid to the tender classification carcasses vs the tough (> 4.9 kg) classification carcasses, and a premium of $36.58 could be paid for the tender classification carcasses vs the intermediate (> 3.0 to < 4.6 kg) classification carcasses. Results from the present study show that consumers can segregate differences in beef tenderness and that consumers are willing to pay more for more-tender beef.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Sensorial attributes are likely to gain further importance because taste is a major determinant of consumption choice in the food industry.
“Sensorial attributes are likely to gain further importance in that taste is a major determinant of consumption choice in the food industry (Marino, Albenzio, Della Malva, Muscio, & Sevi, 2015;Miller, Carr, Ramsey, Crockett, & Hoover, 2001).”
From Emerging trends in European food, diets and food industry (2018) · cites this paper as Miller et al., 2001
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Roque, B. M., Venegas, M., Kinley, R. D., de Nys, R., Duarte, T. L., Yang, X., & Kebreab, E. (2021) · PLOS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0247820 · Cited by 433 · see citing works
Emerging trends in European food, diets and food industry
Santeramo, F. G., Carlucci, D., De Devitiis, B., Seccia, A., Stasi, A., Viscecchia, R., & Nardone, G. (2018) · Food Research International · doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2017.10.039 · Cited by 231 · see citing works
- Authors
- Miller, M. F., Carr, M. A., Ramsey, C. B., Crockett, K. L., & Hoover, L. C.
- Affiliations
- Texas Tech University (US)
- Venue
- Journal of Animal Science
- Publisher
- Oxford University Press (OUP)
- Published
- 2001
- Volume
- 79
- Issue
- 12
- Pages
- 3062
- ISSN
- 0021-8812 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1539341996
- Cited by
- 633
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 11 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 28 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 38 · 2019: 45 · 2018: 36 · 2017: 36 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 38 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 29 · 2012: 30
- FWCI
- 14.97
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Animal Science (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Animal Science and Zoology › Meat and Animal Product Quality
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Food Science › Sensory Analysis and Statistical Methods
- Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Economic and Environmental Valuation
- Keywords
- beef tenderness, Warner-Bratzler shear force, consumer acceptance, willingness to pay, customer satisfaction, juiciness, flavor perception, metropolitan areas, income and education differences, ethnic differences
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Cattle, Consumer Behavior, Female, Food Technology, Humans, Male, Meat, Random Allocation, Taste
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review