Cited by 633Meat and Animal Product QualitySensory Analysis and Statistical MethodsEconomic and Environmental Valuation

Consumer thresholds for establishing the value of beef tenderness

Miller, M F, Carr, M A, Ramsey, C B, Crockett, K L, Hoover, L C·2001·Journal of Animal Science

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

Crossref · 10.2527/2001.79123062x

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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

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
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