<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Publishing DTD with OASIS Tables with MathML3 v1.2d1 20130915//EN" "JATS-archive-oasis-article1.dtd"><article article-type="research-article" xml:lang="en" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink"><front><journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher-id">MMB</journal-id><journal-title-group><journal-title>Meat and Muscle Biology</journal-title></journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">2575-985X</issn><publisher><publisher-name>American Meat Science Association</publisher-name><publisher-loc/></publisher></journal-meta><article-meta><article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.22175/mmb.16246</article-id><article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id"/><article-categories><subj-group subj-group-type="heading"><subject>Research Article</subject></subj-group></article-categories><title-group><article-title>Evaluation of Beef Palatability Following Extended Storage at Low Temperature</article-title><alt-title alt-title-type="right-running">Gonzalez et al.&#x02003;&#x02003;&#x02003;&#x02003;Beef palatability during extended storage</alt-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Gonzalez</surname><given-names>Sara V.</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Rice</surname><given-names>Emily A.</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Geornaras</surname><given-names>Ifigenia</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><name><surname>Nair</surname><given-names>Mahesh N.</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"/><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1">*</xref></contrib></contrib-group><aff id="aff1">Center for Meat Safety &#x00026; Quality, Department of Animal Sciences, <institution>Colorado State University</institution>, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1171, USA</aff><author-notes><corresp id="cor1"><label>&#x0002A;</label>Corresponding author. Email: <email>mnair@colostate.edu</email> (Mahesh N. Nair)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date date-type="epub" publication-format="electronic"><day>00</day><month>00</month><year>0000</year></pub-date><volume>7</volume><issue>1</issue><fpage>1</fpage><lpage>12</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>15</day><month>08</month><year>2023</year></date><date date-type="accepted"><day>01</day><month>11</month><year>2023</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#x000A9; 2023 Gonzalez, Rice, Geornaras, and Nair.</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2023</copyright-year><copyright-holder>&#x000A9; 2023 Gonzalez, Rice, Geornaras, and Nair.</copyright-holder><license license-type="open-access" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/"><license-p>This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY license (<ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link>)</license-p></license></permissions><abstract><title>Abstract</title><p>Extending the shelf life of fresh meat without having an adverse effect on its quality attributes is critical to the meat industry to reduce waste, stabilize supply, and facilitate export. Low temperature (LT) storage of beef muscles at or slightly above their freezing point slows down microbiological spoilage while maintaining the product&#x02019;s fresh status. This study evaluated the impact of 60, 75, or 90 d of LT storage (&#x02212;2.7&#x000B0;C&#x02009;&#x000B1;&#x02009;0.3&#x000B0;C) on the palatability characteristics of steaks from inside rounds (IR), bone-in ribeyes, and striploins (SL) from 10 (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;10) upper two-thirds Choice beef carcasses. Two steaks fabricated from each subprimal were vacuum-packaged, wet-aged for 21 d (3&#x000B0;C), and frozen (&#x02212;20&#x000B0;C) for Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF) and sensory analyses. These steaks served as the control with regard to storage condition and time. The remainder of each subprimal was fabricated into 3 portions, vacuum packaged, and randomly allocated to an LT storage time (60, 75, or 90 d). After each storage time, subprimals were fabricated into steaks, vacuum-packaged, and stored (&#x02212;20&#x000B0;C) for WBSF and consumer sensory analyses. Consumers (<italic>N</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;238) evaluated cooked samples for juiciness, tenderness, flavor liking, and overall liking. Data were analyzed using a mixed model with storage time as the fixed effect and individual carcasses as the random blocking factor. The WBSF values decreased (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05) with increased storage time for all the cuts. Similarly, consumer tenderness rating scores increased with the LT storage time, particularly in IR and SL steaks. However, storage time did not influence (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.05) the juiciness, flavor, and overall liking of any of the cuts. The results of this study suggest it would be feasible to extend the storage time of beef while preserving or improving the sensory quality when held at optimal conditions above the freezing temperature.</p></abstract><kwd-group><title>Keywords:</title> <kwd>beef subprimals</kwd><kwd>extended storage</kwd><kwd>sensory evaluation</kwd><kwd>tenderness</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="sec1"><title>Introduction</title><p>With a fast-growing world population and increasing food demand, food systems must undergo transformations to ensure food security while complying with environmental, economic, and social objectives to meet global sustainability goals (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r14">Godfray et&#x000A0;al., 2010</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r12">FAO, 2018</xref>). Extending the shelf life of fresh meat without any adverse effect on quality attributes is critically important to the meat industry to stabilize supply and facilitate export shipments. Meat is commonly preserved by storing it at chilled temperatures (2&#x000B0;C to 4&#x000B0;C). However, its shelf life under regular chilling conditions can be limited (on average 8 to 10 wk under vacuum packaging) primarily due to microbial spoilage (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r9">Coombs et&#x000A0;al., 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r27">Lu et&#x000A0;al., 2019</xref>). Previous research has shown that the shelf life of fresh beef can be increased to up to 20 wk (140 d) when the product is vacuum-packaged and stored below regular chilling temperatures (around &#x02212;0.5&#x000B0;C to &#x02212;1.5&#x000B0;C) (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r40">Small et&#x000A0;al., 2012</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r7">Chen et&#x000A0;al., 2019</xref>). Furthermore, extended refrigerated storage/aging times can improve beef tenderness through the breakdown of muscle proteins by endogenous proteolytic enzymes (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r6">Casas et&#x000A0;al., 2006</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r38">Ramanathan et&#x000A0;al., 2020</xref>).</p><p>The 2015 National Beef Tenderness Survey reported that the average length of aging for steaks in retail and food service settings was 25.9 and 31.5 d, respectively (with a range of 3 to 102 d), and 11% of the steaks had less than 14 d of aging (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r31">Martinez et&#x000A0;al., 2017</xref>). Such a variation in postmortem aging time could lead to inconsistency in tenderness between products (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r10">Dixon et&#x000A0;al., 2012</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r30">Marino et&#x000A0;al., 2013</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r35">Nair et&#x000A0;al., 2019</xref>). In addition, during the peak steak consumption times of the year in the US, such as summer (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r28">Lusk et&#x000A0;al., 2001</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r42">USDA-ERS, 2022</xref>), not all retailers and restaurants might have the supply of tender steaks needed to meet the demand, which could result in the use of steaks with low postmortem aging days or frozen beef. Additionally, beef market prices are seasonal and become highly inelastic during the summer months (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r28">Lusk et&#x000A0;al., 2001</xref>), as consumers are willing to pay a higher price for specific cuts (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r2">Ardeshiri et&#x000A0;al., 2019</xref>). Even when frozen beef can be used to stabilize the supply during the peak demand periods of the year, negative quality attributes associated with frozen beef, such as high purge, low color stability, poor tenderness, and high off-flavors, need to be considered (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r44">Wheeler et&#x000A0;al., 1990</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r27">Lu et&#x000A0;al., 2019</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r43">Wang et&#x000A0;al., 2020</xref>).</p><p>Low temperature (LT) storage of beef subprimals slightly above their freezing point without the formation of ice crystals could slow down the growth of spoilage microflora and continue postmortem tenderization while maintaining the product&#x02019;s fresh status. This enables beef buyers to have a product held for weeks or even months (&#x02264;3&#x000A0;mo) delivered to them equivalent to a fresh product in terms of storage temperature. Previous studies have shown that extended postmortem aging of samples for more than 42 d can adversely affect beef flavor (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r19">Ju&#x000E1;rez et&#x000A0;al., 2010</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r13">Garmyn et&#x000A0;al., 2020</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r20">Karney et&#x000A0;al., 2022</xref>). Nevertheless, research on the palatability characteristics of beef following LT extended storage is limited. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate tenderness and palatability characteristics of beef inside round (IR), bone-in ribeye (RE), and striploin (SL) cuts following 60, 75, and 90 d of LT storage.</p></sec><sec id="sec2"><title>Materials and Methods</title><sec id="sec2.1"><title>Collection and sample processing</title><p>The Colorado State University Institutional Review Board approved the procedures used in this study (IRB exemption #2784, October 28, 2021). Beef subprimals (IR, RE, and SL) were collected from both sides of 10 (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;10) upper two-thirds Choice beef carcasses from a commercial beef processing facility. All individually identified subprimals were transported in a refrigerated truck to the Department of Animal Sciences Global Food Innovation Center (GFIC) at Colorado State University (Fort Collins, CO). Upon arrival, two 2.5-cm steaks fabricated from each subprimal were vacuum-packaged, wet-aged for 21 d (3&#x000B0;C), and then frozen (&#x02212;20&#x000B0;C) for Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF), cooking loss, and consumer sensory analyses. These samples served as the control treatment. The remainder of each intact subprimal was cut into sections, individually vacuum-packaged, and randomly assigned to 60, 75, or 90 d of LT storage (LT60, LT75, or LT90; &#x02212;2.7&#x000B0;C&#x02009;&#x000B1;&#x02009;0.3&#x000B0;C). The packaged pieces were separated by subprimal cut and LT storage time, boxed, and transported overnight in a refrigerated truck (&#x0003C;4&#x000B0;C) to an LT storage facility. Following each LT storage period, the products were transported overnight in a refrigerated truck (&#x0003C;4&#x000B0;C) to the GFIC. Immediately after arrival, the sections were removed from their vacuum package, and 2 steaks of 2.5&#x000A0;cm were fabricated from each portion (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;10). These steaks were individually vacuum-packaged and stored at &#x02212;20&#x000B0;C for WBSF, cooking loss, and consumer sensory evaluations.</p></sec><sec id="sec2.2"><title>Cooking method</title><p>Before cooking, the frozen steaks were tempered for 24&#x000A0;h at 3&#x000B0;C to attain a raw internal temperature of 0&#x000B0;C to 4&#x000B0;C at the time of cooking. All excess external fat was trimmed off the raw steaks and then cooked in a combi-oven (Model SCC WE 61 E; Rational, Landsberg am Lech, Germany) set at 204&#x000B0;C, until a peak internal temperature of 71&#x000B0;C was achieved. A thermometer (Thermapen Mk4, Thermoworks Inc., American Fork, UT) placed in the geometric center of each steak was used to determine the peak internal temperature of the cooked steaks. For WBSF analysis, approximately 8 steaks from the same subprimal were cooked in the combi-oven and were grouped by raw weight without consideration of the treatment. For the sensory analysis, steaks from the same subprimal were cooked in their random serving order, with no more than 3 steaks at a time in the oven.</p></sec><sec id="sec2.3"><title>Cooking loss</title><p>The trimmed raw steaks were weighed on a food scale (V22XWE3T, Ohaus Corporation, Parsippany, NJ) prior to cooking. After cooking, the steaks were weighed again to calculate the percentage of cooking loss with the following formula: cook loss percentage&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;[(raw weight&#x02009;&#x02212;&#x02009;cooked weight)/raw weight]&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;100.</p></sec><sec id="sec2.4"><title>Warner-Bratzler shear force</title><p>Cooked steaks destined for WBSF determination were placed on trays, avoiding any overlap, and were covered with plastic wrap and refrigerated (3&#x000B0;C) overnight. The next day, cooked steaks were trimmed of visible connective tissue to expose muscle fiber orientation. Hand-held coring devices were used to remove at least six 1.2-cm diameter cores parallel to the muscle fibers from each steak. Cores were sheared once, perpendicular to the muscle fibers, using a universal testing machine (Instron Corp., Canton, MA) fitted with a Warner-Bratzler shear head (crosshead speed: 200&#x000A0;mm/min, load cell capacity: 100&#x000A0;kg). Peak shear force was recorded, and values from the cores taken from each steak were averaged to obtain a single WBSF value for each steak. The average peak shear force of the cores was used for statistical analysis.</p></sec><sec id="sec2.5"><title>Sensory evaluation</title><p>A total of 120 steaks (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;10) identified with a four-digit number were randomly assigned by subprimal cut (i.e., IR, RE, SL) and storage time (i.e., 21 d wet-aged control, LT60, LT75, and LT90) to one of 30 panel sessions with 4 steaks evaluated per panel. Steaks were also randomly assigned a serving order within each panel session, and 8 panelists evaluated each steak. Frozen steaks were tempered for 18 to 24&#x000A0;h at 3&#x000B0;C before cooking, and the samples were cooked (as described previously) in the serving order. Cooked steaks were trimmed of all external fat and connective tissue and cut into cuboidal pieces (1-cm<sup>2</sup> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo form="prefix">&#x000D7;</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> cooked steak thickness). Samples were served in order and warm to panelists, and portions comprised mainly of fat or heavy connective tissue were not utilized.</p><p>Panelists were recruited (<italic>N</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;238) from Fort Collins, CO, and surrounding communities. Panels took place at Colorado State University in groups of 24 panelists. At the beginning of each panel, participants were given a brief orientation and ballot completion instructions. Then, participants signed a consent form, and demographic and beef consumption information was collected (<xref ref-type="table" rid="tab2">Supplemental Table&#x000A0;1</xref>). Each panelist evaluated a total of 4 samples, with each sample representing a different storage time (i.e., 21 d wet-aged, LT60, LT75, and LT90). Each participant was given 2 cuboidal portions per sample in a plate identified with the random four-digit sample number. Panelists were provided unsalted saltine crackers (Nabisco Unsalted Tops Premium; Mondelez Global LLC, East Hanover, NJ), water, and 25% diluted unsweetened apple juice to use as palate cleansers between samples. For all palatability characteristics, samples were rated using a 100-point continuous line scale with anchors as follows: juiciness (0&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;extremely dry, 50&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;neither juicy nor dry, 100&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;extremely juicy), tenderness (0&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;extremely tough, 50&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;neither tough nor tender, 100&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;extremely tender), flavor (0&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;dislike extremely, 50&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;neither like nor dislike, 100&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;like extremely), and overall liking (0&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;dislike extremely, 50&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;neither like nor dislike, 100&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;like extremely). Additionally, consumers evaluated these 4 attributes for acceptability (juiciness acceptance, tenderness acceptance, flavor acceptance, and overall liking acceptance), including the presence or absence of off-flavors, with a &#x0201C;yes&#x0201D; or &#x0201C;no&#x0201D; answer, leaving perceived acceptance levels to consumers&#x02019; interpretation. All data were collected using Qualtrics software (Provo, UT).</p><table-wrap id="tab1"><label>Table 1.</label><caption><p>Least-squares means for the percentage of consumers (<italic>N</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;238) who indicated acceptability for juiciness, tenderness, flavor, overall liking, and absence of off-flavor of inside round (IR), bone-in ribeye (RE), and striploin (SL) steaks (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;10) that were in low temperature (&#x02212;2.7&#x000B0;C&#x02009;&#x000B1;&#x02009;0.3&#x000B0;C) storage (60, 75, or 90 d) or wet-aged for 21 d</p></caption><table><colgroup><col align="left"/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="center"/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/></colgroup><thead><tr><th>Cut</th><th>Days of storage</th><th>Juiciness acceptability</th><th>Tenderness acceptability</th><th>Flavor acceptability</th><th>Absence of off-flavor</th><th>Overall acceptability</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="6"><bold>IR</bold></td><td>21</td><td>78.2</td><td>78.8</td><td>81.8</td><td>80.7</td><td>81.2</td></tr><tr><td>60</td><td>82.0</td><td>84.7</td><td>83.6</td><td>83.8</td><td>78.0</td></tr><tr><td>75</td><td>85.3</td><td>92.3</td><td>90.2</td><td>83.3</td><td>89.3</td></tr><tr><td>90</td><td>71.9</td><td>80.5</td><td>90.5</td><td>76.2</td><td>81.5</td></tr><tr><td>SE</td><td>7.7</td><td>7.3</td><td>4.7</td><td>5.6</td><td>5.4</td></tr><tr><td><italic>P</italic> value</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.33</td><td>0.67</td><td>0.33</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6"><bold>RE</bold></td><td>21</td><td>88.7</td><td>93.3</td><td>95.6</td><td>95.8</td><td>92.5</td></tr><tr><td>60</td><td>83.3</td><td>92.0</td><td>94.2</td><td>86.5</td><td>83.3</td></tr><tr><td>75</td><td>81.0</td><td>94.1</td><td>90.8</td><td>93.0</td><td>92.1</td></tr><tr><td>90</td><td>76.2</td><td>91.0</td><td>89.3</td><td>93.7</td><td>87.3</td></tr><tr><td>SE</td><td>5.4</td><td>4.2</td><td>4.3</td><td>6.3</td><td>5.4</td></tr><tr><td><italic>P</italic> value</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.92</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.35</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6"><bold>SL</bold></td><td>21</td><td>81.9</td><td>90.2</td><td>89.1</td><td>87.9</td><td>92.4</td></tr><tr><td>60</td><td>81.7</td><td>90.6</td><td>91.3</td><td>89.2</td><td>91.8</td></tr><tr><td>75</td><td>86.7</td><td>95.0</td><td>91.3</td><td>85.5</td><td>92.9</td></tr><tr><td>90</td><td>85.0</td><td>95.3</td><td>84.4</td><td>84.9</td><td>86.7</td></tr><tr><td>SE</td><td>5.1</td><td>4.5</td><td>4.6</td><td>4.8</td><td>5.3</td></tr><tr><td><italic>P</italic> value</td><td>0.80</td><td>0.43</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.85</td><td>0.55</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn id="tab1-fn1"><p>SE: standard error.</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap></sec><sec id="sec2.6"><title>Statistical analysis</title><p>All analyses were performed within each subprimal cut since it is known that different subprimals/muscles have different quality characteristics (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r16">Gruber et&#x000A0;al., 2006</xref>). Data analysis was performed in R version 4.0.3 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r37">R Core Team, 2020</xref>) using the lme4 package (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r3">Bates et&#x000A0;al., 2015</xref>) as a mixed model, where storage time (i.e., 21 d wet-aged and LT storage time [LT60, LT75, LT90]) was set as a fixed effect and individual carcass as a random blocking factor. Least-squares means were calculated using the emmeans package (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r24">Lenth, 2020</xref>), and their differences are reported using a significance level of &#x003B1;&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;0.05 with Tukey&#x02019;s multiple comparison adjustment. Additionally, a mixed-effects binomial model was used to evaluate percentage acceptability of sensory trait and absence of off-flavor based on the storage conditions and times, where the carcass was set as a random blocking factor and storage time as a fixed effect.</p></sec></sec><sec id="sec3"><title>Results</title><sec id="sec3.1"><title>Cooking loss</title><p>The percentage of cooking loss by cut and storage days is shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="f1">Figure&#x000A0;1</xref>. The different storage conditions (i.e., LT or 21 d wet-aged) and times had no effect (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.05) on cooking loss irrespective of subprimal cut.</p><fig id="f1"><label>Figure 1.</label><caption><p>Effect of low temperature (&#x02212;2.7&#x000B0;C&#x02009;&#x000B1;&#x02009;0.3&#x000B0;C) storage times (60, 75, or 90 d) or 21 d of wet aging on the percentage of cooking loss of inside round (IR), bone-in ribeye (RE), and striploin (SL) steaks (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;10). Same letters (a)&#x000A0;above the error bars indicate similarity (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.05). Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="1.png"/></fig></sec><sec id="sec3.2"><title>Warner-Bratzler shear force</title><p>The WBSF values of all 3 cuts generally decreased with an increase in storage time, as shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="f2">Figure&#x000A0;2</xref>. However, WBSF values of LT60 steaks were similar (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.05) to the control steaks subjected to 21 d of wet aging, regardless of the cut. WBSF values for LT90 RE and SL steaks were lower (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05) than their corresponding LT60 and 21 d wet-aged samples. For IR, LT75 and LT90 samples had lower (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05) WBSF values than steaks subjected to 21 d of wet aging but were similar (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.05) to those of LT60 steaks.</p><fig id="f2"><label>Figure 2.</label><caption><p>Effect of low temperature (&#x02212;2.7&#x000B0;C&#x02009;&#x000B1;&#x02009;0.3&#x000B0;C) storage times (60, 75, or 90 d) or 21 d of wet aging on Warner-Bratzler shear force (kg) of inside round (IR), bone-in ribeye (RE), and striploin (SL) steaks (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;10). Different letters (a-b) above the error bars indicate significant differences (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05). Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="2.png"/></fig></sec><sec id="sec3.3"><title>Sensory evaluation</title><p>Consumer sensory ratings for juiciness, tenderness, flavor, and overall liking are presented in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="f3">Figures&#x000A0;3</xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="f4">4</xref>, and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="f5">5</xref> for IR, RE, and SL, respectively, and the percentage of acceptance of these sensory traits and absence of off-flavor for all cuts are shown in <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab1">Table&#x000A0;1</xref>. As presented in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="f3">Figure&#x000A0;3</xref>, IR sample scores for juiciness, flavor, and overall liking were similar (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.05) between the storage conditions and days. Tenderness scores for IR LT75 steaks were higher (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05) than those of 21 d wet-aged samples but were not different (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.05) from the tenderness scores of LT60 and LT90 steaks (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="f3">Figure&#x000A0;3B</xref>). The overall liking scores of all IR samples were similar (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.05; <xref ref-type="fig" rid="f3">Figure&#x000A0;3D</xref>). Additionally, all the sensory traits&#x02019; acceptance percentages were similar (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.05) for IR steaks within storage conditions and days (<xref ref-type="table" rid="tab1">Table&#x000A0;1</xref>). However, tenderness of LT75 steaks had a percentage acceptability of 92.3% (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;0.1), which is at least 7% higher than the rest of the treatments. This result for the IR steaks follows the same pattern as the tenderness score, where LT75 steaks had the highest tenderness rating.</p><fig id="f3"><label>Figure 3.</label><caption><p>Consumer panelists (<italic>N</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;79) sensory evaluation of inside round steaks (IR; <italic>n</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;10) that were in low temperature (&#x02212;2.7&#x000B0;C&#x02009;&#x000B1;&#x02009;0.3&#x000B0;C) storage (60, 75, or 90 d) or were wet-aged for 21 d. A: juiciness with a scoring scale from 0 to 100 was used, with 0 being labeled as extremely dry, 50 neither juicy nor dry, and 100 extremely juicy; B: tenderness with a scoring scale from 0 to 100 was used, with 0 being labeled as extremely tough, 50 neither tough nor tender, and 100 extremely tender; C: flavor liking; D: overall liking using scoring scale from 0 to 100 with 0 being labeled as dislike extremely, 50 neither like nor dislike, and 100 like extremely. Different letters (a-b) above the error bars indicate significant differences (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05). Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="3.png"/></fig><fig id="f4"><label>Figure 4.</label><caption><p>Consumer panelists (<italic>N</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;79) sensory evaluation of ribeye steaks (RE; <italic>n</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;10) that were in low temperature (&#x02212;2.7&#x000B0;C&#x02009;&#x000B1;&#x02009;0.3&#x000B0;C) storage (60, 75, or 90 d) or were wet-aged for 21 d. A: juiciness with a scoring scale from 0 to 100 was used, with 0 being labeled as extremely dry, 50 neither juicy nor dry, and 100 extremely juicy; B: tenderness using a scoring scale from 0 to 100 was used with 0 being labeled as extremely tough, 50 neither tough nor tender, and 100 extremely tender; C: flavor liking; D: overall liking using scoring scale from 0 to 100 was used with 0 being labeled as dislike extremely, 50 neither like nor dislike, and 100 like extremely. Same letters (a)&#x000A0;above the error bars indicate similarity (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.05). Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="4.png"/></fig><fig id="f5"><label>Figure 5.</label><caption><p>Consumer panelists (<italic>N</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;80) sensory evaluation of striploin steaks (SL; <italic>n</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;10) that were in low temperature (&#x02212;2.7&#x000B0;C&#x02009;&#x000B1;&#x02009;0.3&#x000B0;C) storage (60, 75, or 90 d) or were wet-aged for 21 d. A: juiciness with a scoring scale from 0 to 100 was used, with 0 being labeled as extremely dry, 50 neither juicy nor dry, and 100 extremely juicy; B: tenderness using a scoring scale from 0 to 100 was used with 0 being labeled as extremely tough, 50 neither tough nor tender, and 100 extremely tender; C: flavor liking; D: overall liking using scoring scale from 0 to 100 was used with 0 being labeled as dislike extremely, 50 neither like nor dislike, and 100 like extremely. Different letters (a-b) above the error bars indicate significant differences (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05). Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="5.png"/></fig><p>The results of the consumer sensory evaluation of the RE steaks are shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="f4">Figure&#x000A0;4</xref>. Consumers could not detect (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.05) any difference in the sensory attributes of RE steaks, regardless of the storage time (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="f4">Figure&#x000A0;4</xref>). Likewise, there were no differences (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.05) in the absence of off-flavor and acceptability for juiciness, tenderness, flavor, and overall liking within each storage period (<xref ref-type="table" rid="tab1">Table&#x000A0;1</xref>). As expected, the tenderness acceptability percentage of RE steaks was higher than 91%, regardless of the storage time (<xref ref-type="table" rid="tab1">Table&#x000A0;1</xref>).</p><p>For the SL samples, there was no (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.05) storage time effect on juiciness, flavor, and overall liking (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="f5">Figure&#x000A0;5</xref>). However, consumers detected differences among the storage times for tenderness ratings of SL steaks. More specifically, tenderness scores of LT90 samples were greater (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05) than those of LT60 steaks but similar (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.05) to tenderness scores of LT75 and 21 d wet-aged samples. Additionally, percentages of acceptance of all sensory traits evaluated and the absence of off-flavor on SL steaks did not (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.05) differ by storage time (<xref ref-type="table" rid="tab1">Table&#x000A0;1</xref>).</p></sec></sec><sec id="sec4"><title>Discussion</title><p>Previous research has demonstrated that storage of beef below typical chilling temperatures (&#x02212;0.5&#x000B0;C to &#x02212;1.5&#x000B0;C) can extend its shelf life by up to 20 wk (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r40">Small et&#x000A0;al., 2012</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r7">Chen et&#x000A0;al., 2019</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r45">Yang et&#x000A0;al., 2022</xref>). Beef quality attributes such as WBSF, cooking loss, and color, following storage at temperatures below 0&#x000B0;C without freezing have been evaluated previously (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r7">Chen et&#x000A0;al., 2019</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r27">Lu et&#x000A0;al., 2019</xref>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r26">2020</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r45">Yang et&#x000A0;al., 2022</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r46">Zhang et&#x000A0;al., 2023</xref>). These studies have demonstrated that storage of vacuum-packaged beef below typical chilling temperatures can extend its shelf life while improving postmortem tenderization. However, the effect of this extended storage on palatability traits has not been examined extensively. Palatability traits such as tenderness, juiciness, and flavor are critical for consumer acceptance and repurchase decisions (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r41">Smith and Carpenter, 1974</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r29">Lyford et&#x000A0;al., 2010</xref>). In the current study, palatability characteristics, including cooking loss, WBSF, and sensory evaluations of 3 major beef cuts (IR, RE, and SL) following LT storage, were assessed. In general, as storage time increased, WBSF values decreased, and tenderness rating increased, with no differences in cooking loss or juiciness, flavor, and overall liking.</p><p>Most of the weight loss that occurs during cooking is the result of water being expelled by protein degradation and muscle fiber contraction (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r25">Lepetit et&#x000A0;al., 2000</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r22">Kondjoyan et&#x000A0;al., 2013</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r18">Hughes et&#x000A0;al., 2014</xref>). With extended storage time, a decrease in water holding capacity is expected, which can lead to an increase in cooking loss. However, in the current study, the storage condition and time did not influence the cooking loss of the IR, RE, and SL steaks (Figure&#x000A0;<xref ref-type="fig" rid="f1">1</xref>). Cao et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r5">2022</xref>) evaluated the cooking loss of beef <italic>longissimus dorsi</italic> steaks at 0, 4, 8, 12, 16, 20, and 24 d of vacuum storage at refrigerated (4&#x000B0;C) and superchilled temperatures (&#x02212;1.5&#x000B0;C). These researchers reported that following storage, samples stored at 4&#x000B0;C had higher cooking loss than samples held at &#x02212;1.5&#x000B0;C for the same length of time (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r5">Cao et&#x000A0;al., 2022</xref>). Interestingly, under both storage conditions, cooking loss initially increased from 0 to 4 d and then decreased during the remainder of the storage time (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r5">Cao et&#x000A0;al., 2022</xref>). In contrast, Lu et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r27">2019</xref>) assessed the effect of extended storage at &#x02212;4&#x000B0;C (0 to 24 wk) and 2&#x000B0;C (0 to 8 wk) on SL. Samples stored at &#x02212;4&#x000B0;C had greater cooking loss than those held at 2&#x000B0;C (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r27">Lu et&#x000A0;al., 2019</xref>). However, cooking loss of samples held at &#x02212;4&#x000B0;C for 8, 12, and 24 wk was similar, suggesting that changes in cooking loss might not be significant after 8 wk (56 d) of storage (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r27">Lu et&#x000A0;al., 2019</xref>).</p><p>Tenderness is considered the most critical factor in overall eating satisfaction and consumers&#x02019; acceptability of beef (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r33">Miller et&#x000A0;al., 2001</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r39">Shackelford et&#x000A0;al., 2001</xref>). In the present study, WBSF values of all 3 cuts decrease with an increase in storage time, as shown in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="f2">Figure&#x000A0;2</xref>. In general, initial tenderness (21 d wet-aged) for all the cuts met the Minimum Tenderness Threshold Value of less than 4.4&#x000A0;kg WBSF (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r1">ASTM, 2011</xref>). Furthermore, WBSF values of RE and SL steaks after 21 d of wet aging could be considered &#x0201C;very tender&#x0201D; (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r1">ASTM, 2011</xref>), and WBSF values of IR steaks achieved this threshold after LT60. The WBSF results of this study agree with previous studies that have observed a decrease in shear force with an increase in aging time (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r16">Gruber et&#x000A0;al., 2006</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r10">Dixon et&#x000A0;al., 2012</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r8">Colle et&#x000A0;al., 2015</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r20">Karney et&#x000A0;al., 2022</xref>). However, the results can vary depending on parameters such as storage temperature and muscle evaluated (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r27">Lu et&#x000A0;al., 2019</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r35">Nair et&#x000A0;al., 2019</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r26">Lu et&#x000A0;al., 2020</xref>). For example, Lu et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r27">2019</xref>) assessed the effect of extended storage at &#x02212;4&#x000B0;C (0 to 24 wk) and 2&#x000B0;C (0 to 8 wk) on SL and reported that WBSF values of SL steaks after 12 wk of storage at &#x02212;4&#x000B0;C were lower than those stored for 4 wk at &#x02212;4&#x000B0;C. The authors further reported that WBSF values of steaks after 8 wk of chilled storage (2&#x000B0;C) were lower than those after 4 wk of storage at the same temperature (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r27">Lu et&#x000A0;al., 2019</xref>). However, WBSF values of samples after 4 wk of chilled storage (2&#x000B0;C) were significantly lower than those of samples held for 12 wk at &#x02212;4&#x000B0;C, indicating that the time and temperature of storage can have an impact on tenderness. Similarly, Karney et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r20">2022</xref>) performed WBSF analyses on SL that had been wet-aged at 0&#x000B0;C for 14, 21, 28, 35, 49, or 63 d and reported that 49 and 63 d aged samples had the lowest WBSF values, while 21, 28, and 35 d aged steaks had similar values.</p><p>Consumers&#x02019; eating satisfaction is crucial when new technologies are being evaluated to extend beef shelf life since it is documented that consumers are willing to pay more for beef that meets their eating expectations (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r29">Lyford et&#x000A0;al., 2010</xref>). Generally, beef palatability is attributed to juiciness, tenderness, and flavor (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r41">Smith and Carpenter, 1974</xref>), and these primary sensory traits were evaluated in the current study, along with overall liking. The term &#x0201C;juiciness&#x0201D; describes the sensation that occurs when meats have higher levels of juices, and it is positively associated with consumer preference (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r32">Maughan et&#x000A0;al., 2012</xref>). The changes in the juiciness of steaks from the different LT storage periods varied depending on the cut evaluated. However, regardless of the cut, consumers could not detect differences in juiciness among any of the storage treatments. These results agreed with cooking loss, where no differences were observed. The lack of differences in juiciness, regardless of the storage time, could be because all samples were from upper two-thirds Choice carcasses, where the amount of marbling is moderate (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r11">Emerson et&#x000A0;al., 2013</xref>). Laster et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r23">2008</xref>) performed consumer sensory evaluations on RE and SL steaks that were wet-aged at &#x02212;0.6&#x000B0;C&#x02009;&#x000B1;&#x02009;1.8&#x000B0;C for 14, 21, 28, and 35 d (after initial aging for 9 d during shipment) and reported no differences in the juiciness levels of RE and SL steaks over the aging periods.</p><p>In the current study, consumers were able to detect differences in tenderness with the storage time for IR and SL samples. However, they could not detect differences in tenderness for RE steaks, regardless of the storage time. This result is also in agreement with Laster et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r23">2008</xref>), where consumers were unable to detect the differences in tenderness of RE after wet aging. The percentage of acceptance of tenderness did not vary by storage time, irrespective of the cut (<xref ref-type="table" rid="tab1">Table&#x000A0;1</xref>). Moreover, these observations in consumer evaluations were consistent with the WBSF results, where WBSF values of LT90 IR and SL steaks were more than 1&#x000A0;kg lower compared to IR and SL steaks aged for 21 d. Specifically, the WBSF values of LT75 and LT90 IR steaks were lower than those of 21 d wet-aged samples, and WBSF values of LT90 SL steaks were lower than those of LT60 samples. Although there was a statistical difference between WBSF values of LT90 RE steaks and WBSF values of LT60 and 21 d wet-aged RE samples, the change was less than 1&#x000A0;kg, which could explain why consumers could not perceive the difference (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r34">Miller et&#x000A0;al., 1995</xref>).</p><p>Several studies have demonstrated that flavor is of great importance when tenderness is acceptable (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r15">Goodson et&#x000A0;al., 2002</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r21">Killinger et&#x000A0;al., 2004</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r4">Behrends et&#x000A0;al., 2005</xref>), and a recent study indicated that it could have more influence than tenderness on overall consumer eating satisfaction of beef (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r36">O&#x02019;Quinn et&#x000A0;al., 2018</xref>). In the current study, as storage time increased, flavor scores numerically increased for IR and SL steaks (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="f3">Figure&#x000A0;3C</xref> and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="f5">5C</xref>), whereas flavor scores numerically decreased for RE steaks (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="f4">Figure&#x000A0;4C</xref>); however, none of these changes were statistically significant. The overall liking scores of samples were similar for all storage times, regardless of the cut evaluated (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="f3">Figure&#x000A0;3D</xref>, <xref ref-type="fig" rid="f4">4D</xref>, and <xref ref-type="fig" rid="f5">5D</xref>). Similar to the present study, Colle et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r8">2015</xref>) assessed the flavor and overall liking of SL steaks aged (2, 14, 21, 42, and 63 d) at 0&#x000B0;C and reported no differences in either attribute across the different aging periods. In contrast, Garmyn et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r13">2020</xref>) evaluated flavor and overall liking every 7 d of SL aged at 2&#x000B0;C from 21 to 84 d and reported a significant decrease as postmortem aging time increased. Differences in results from the current study compared to others, where overall liking decreased with aging time, could be due to the lower temperature used during storage. Previously, Ju&#x000E1;rez et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r19">2010</xref>) demonstrated that storage temperature could affect the off-flavor intensity, with SL and IR steaks stored at 5&#x000B0;C having a greater off-flavor compared to steaks stored at 1&#x000B0;C. A recent study (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r17">Hernandez et&#x000A0;al., 2023</xref>) evaluated the influence of storage temperature (&#x02212;2&#x000B0;C, 0&#x000B0;C, or 4&#x000B0;C) and duration (14, 28, 42, or 56 d) of vacuum-packaged beef SL on palatability, and it was reported that off-flavors, such as sour notes, were higher on samples aged for 56 d at 4&#x000B0;C compared with those stored for the same time at the lower temperatures.</p></sec><sec id="sec5"><title>Conclusions</title><p>Tenderness and palatability attributes are important when new processes are being evaluated as they affect consumers&#x02019; eating satisfaction and repurchase decisions. In the current study, the WBSF values of IR, RE, and SL steaks decreased over LT storage time (up to 90 d), and perceived tenderness by consumers increased with no adverse effect on juiciness, flavor, and overall liking. These results suggested that storage temperatures lower than typical chilling temperatures could extend the storage life of beef while preserving or even improving sensory performance. With seasonality in beef price and consumption, these results can be useful to the meat industry to stabilize supply.</p></sec></body><back><ack><title>Acknowledgments</title><p>Funding for this research was provided by The Beef Checkoff. The use of trade names in this publication does not imply endorsement or criticism by Colorado State University of those or similar products not mentioned.</p></ack><ref-list><title>Literature Cited</title><ref id="r1"><mixed-citation publication-type="other"><collab>ASTM</collab>. <year>2011</year>. F2925-11. Standard specification for tenderness marketing claims associated with meat cuts derived from beef. ASTM Int., <publisher-loc>West Conshohocken, PA</publisher-loc>. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://standards.globalspec.com/std/3844643/ASTM/2925-11">https://standards.globalspec.com/std/3844643/ASTM/2925-11</ext-link>. (Accessed February 18, 2022.)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r2"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ardeshiri</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>S.</given-names> <surname>Sampson</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>J.</given-names> <surname>Swait</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2019</year>. <article-title>Seasonality effects on consumers&#x02019; preferences over quality attributes of different beef products</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>157</volume>:<fpage>107868</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.06.004</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r3"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Bates</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M.</given-names> <surname>M&#x000E4;chler</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>B.</given-names> <surname>Bolker</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>S.</given-names> <surname>Walker</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2015</year>. <article-title>Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4</article-title>. <source>J Stat Softw</source>. <volume>67</volume>:<fpage>1</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>48</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v067.i01</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r4"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Behrends</surname>, <given-names>J. M.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>K. J.</given-names> <surname>Goodson</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M.</given-names> <surname>Koohmaraie</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>S. D.</given-names> <surname>Shackelford</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>T. L.</given-names> <surname>Wheeler</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>W. W.</given-names> <surname>Morgan</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. O.</given-names> <surname>Reagan</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>B. L.</given-names> <surname>Gwartney</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. W.</given-names> <surname>Wise</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>J. W.</given-names> <surname>Savell</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2005</year>. <article-title>Beef customer satisfaction: USDA quality grade and marination effects on consumer evaluations of top round steaks</article-title>. <source>J Anim Sci</source>. <volume>83</volume>:<fpage>662</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>670</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.2527/2005.833662x</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r5"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Cao</surname>, <given-names>Y.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R.</given-names> <surname>Hao</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>Z.</given-names> <surname>Guo</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>L.</given-names> <surname>Han</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>Q.</given-names> <surname>Yu</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>W.</given-names> <surname>Zhang</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2022</year>. <article-title>Combined effects of superchilling and natural extracts on beef preservation quality</article-title>. <source>LWT</source> <volume>153</volume>:<fpage>112520</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2021.112520</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r6"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Casas</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>S. N.</given-names> <surname>White</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>T. L.</given-names> <surname>Wheeler</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>S. D.</given-names> <surname>Shackelford</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M.</given-names> <surname>Koohmaraie</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D. G.</given-names> <surname>Riley</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>C. C.</given-names> <surname>Chase</surname>, <suffix>Jr.</suffix></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D. D.</given-names> <surname>Johnson</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>T. P. L.</given-names> <surname>Smith</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2006</year>. <article-title>Effects of calpastatin and &#x003BC;-calpain markers in beef cattle on tenderness traits</article-title>. <source>J Anim Sci</source>. <volume>84</volume>:<fpage>520</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>525</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.2527/2006.843520x</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r7"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Chen</surname>, <given-names>X.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>Y.</given-names> <surname>Zhang</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>X.</given-names> <surname>Yang</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D. L.</given-names> <surname>Hopkins</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>L.</given-names> <surname>Zhu</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>P.</given-names> <surname>Dong</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R.</given-names> <surname>Liang</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>X.</given-names> <surname>Luo</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2019</year>. <article-title>Shelf-life and microbial community dynamics of super-chilled beef imported from Australia to China</article-title>. <source>Food Res Int</source>. <volume>120</volume>:<fpage>784</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>792</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2018.11.039</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r8"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Colle</surname>, <given-names>M. J.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R. P.</given-names> <surname>Richard</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>K. M.</given-names> <surname>Killinger</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. C.</given-names> <surname>Bohlscheid</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>A. R.</given-names> <surname>Gray</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>W. I.</given-names> <surname>Loucks</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R. N.</given-names> <surname>Day</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>A. S.</given-names> <surname>Cochran</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. A.</given-names> <surname>Nasados</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>M. E.</given-names> <surname>Doumit</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2015</year>. <article-title>Influence of extended aging on beef quality characteristics and sensory perception of steaks from the <italic>gluteus medius</italic> and <italic>longissimus lumborum</italic></article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>110</volume>:<fpage>32</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>39</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.06.013</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r9"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Coombs</surname>, <given-names>C. E. O.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>B. W. B.</given-names> <surname>Holman</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. A.</given-names> <surname>Friend</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>D. L.</given-names> <surname>Hopkins</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2017</year>. <article-title>Long-term red meat preservation using chilled and frozen storage combinations: A review</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>125</volume>:<fpage>84</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>94</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.11.025</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r10"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Dixon</surname>, <given-names>C. L.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D. R.</given-names> <surname>Woerner</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R. J.</given-names> <surname>Tokach</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>P. L.</given-names> <surname>Chapman</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>T. E.</given-names> <surname>Engle</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. D.</given-names> <surname>Tatum</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>K. E.</given-names> <surname>Belk</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2012</year>. <article-title>Quantifying the aging response and nutrient composition for muscles of the beef round</article-title>. <source>J Anim Sci</source>. <volume>90</volume>:<fpage>996</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>1007</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r11"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Emerson</surname>, <given-names>M. R.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D. R.</given-names> <surname>Woerner</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>K. E.</given-names> <surname>Belk</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>J. D.</given-names> <surname>Tatum</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2013</year>. <article-title>Effectiveness of USDA instrument-based marbling measurements for categorizing beef carcasses according to differences in longissimus muscle sensory attributes</article-title>. <source>J Anim Sci</source>. <volume>91</volume>:<fpage>1024</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>1034</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-5514</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r12"><mixed-citation publication-type="other"><collab>Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO)</collab>. <year>2018</year>. Sustainable food systems: Concepts and framework. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.fao.org/3/ca2079en/CA2079EN.pdf">https://www.fao.org/3/ca2079en/CA2079EN.pdf</ext-link>. (Accessed March 27, 2023.)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r13"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Garmyn</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>N.</given-names> <surname>Hardcastle</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R.</given-names> <surname>Polkinghorne</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>L.</given-names> <surname>Lucherk</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>M.</given-names> <surname>Miller</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2020</year>. <article-title>Extending aging of beef <italic>longissimus lumborum</italic> from 21 to 84 days postmortem influences consumer eating quality</article-title>. <source>Foods</source> <volume>9</volume>:<fpage>208</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9020208</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r14"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Godfray</surname>, <given-names>H. C. J.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. R.</given-names> <surname>Beddington</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>I. R.</given-names> <surname>Crute</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>L.</given-names> <surname>Haddad</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D.</given-names> <surname>Lawrence</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. F.</given-names> <surname>Muir</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J.</given-names> <surname>Pretty</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>S.</given-names> <surname>Robinson</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>S. M.</given-names> <surname>Thomas</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>C.</given-names> <surname>Toulmin</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2010</year>. <article-title>Food security: The challenge of feeding 9 billion people</article-title>. <source>Science</source> <volume>327</volume>:<fpage>812</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>818</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1185383</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r15"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Goodson</surname>, <given-names>K. J.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>W. W.</given-names> <surname>Morgan</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. O.</given-names> <surname>Reagan</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>B. L.</given-names> <surname>Gwartney</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>S. M.</given-names> <surname>Courington</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. W.</given-names> <surname>Wise</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>J. W.</given-names> <surname>Savell</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2002</year>. <article-title>Beef customer satisfaction: Factors affecting consumer evaluations of clod steaks</article-title>. <source>J Anim Sci</source>. <volume>80</volume>:<fpage>401</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>408</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.2527/2002.802401x</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r16"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Gruber</surname>, <given-names>S. L.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. D.</given-names> <surname>Tatum</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. A.</given-names> <surname>Scanga</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>P. L.</given-names> <surname>Chapman</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>G. C.</given-names> <surname>Smith</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>K. E.</given-names> <surname>Belk</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2006</year>. <article-title>Effects of postmortem aging and USDA quality grade on Warner-Bratzler shear force values of seventeen individual beef muscles</article-title>. <source>J Anim Sci</source>. <volume>84</volume>:<fpage>3387</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>3396</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2006-194</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r17"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hernandez</surname>, <given-names>M. S.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D. R.</given-names> <surname>Woerner</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. C.</given-names> <surname>Brooks</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>T. L.</given-names> <surname>Wheeler</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>J. F.</given-names> <surname>Legako</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2023</year>. <article-title>Influence of aging temperature and duration on flavor and tenderness development of vacuum-packaged beef longissimus</article-title>. <source>Meat Muscle Biol</source>. <volume>7</volume>:<issue>15710</issue>, <fpage>1</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>14</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb.15710</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r18"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hughes</surname>, <given-names>J. M.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>S. K.</given-names> <surname>Oiseth</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>P. P.</given-names> <surname>Purslow</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>R. D.</given-names> <surname>Warner</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2014</year>. <article-title>A structural approach to understanding the interactions between colour, water-holding capacity and tenderness</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>98</volume>:<fpage>520</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>532</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.05.022</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r19"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ju&#x000E1;rez</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>I. L.</given-names> <surname>Larsen</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>L. L.</given-names> <surname>Gibson</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>W. M.</given-names> <surname>Robertson</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. E. R.</given-names> <surname>Dugan</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>N.</given-names> <surname>Aldai</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>J. L.</given-names> <surname>Aalhus</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2010</year>. <article-title>Extended ageing time and temperature effects on quality of sub-primal cuts of boxed beef</article-title>. <source>Can J Anim Sci</source>. <volume>90</volume>:<fpage>361</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>370</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.4141/CJAS09079</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r20"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Karney</surname>, <given-names>E. D.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. N.</given-names> <surname>Nair</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>E.</given-names> <surname>Rice</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>T. W.</given-names> <surname>Thompson</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>K. E.</given-names> <surname>Belk</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>D. R.</given-names> <surname>Woerner</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2022</year>. <article-title>Effect of extended postmortem aging on beef muscles of differing quality grade during retail display</article-title>. <source>Meat Muscle Biol</source>. <volume>6</volume>:<issue>13894</issue>, <fpage>1</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>14</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb.13894</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r21"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Killinger</surname>, <given-names>K. M.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>C. R.</given-names> <surname>Calkins</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>W. J.</given-names> <surname>Umberger</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D. M.</given-names> <surname>Feuz</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>K. M.</given-names> <surname>Eskridge</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2004</year>. <article-title>Consumer sensory acceptance and value for beef steaks of similar tenderness, but differing in marbling level</article-title>. <source>J Anim Sci</source>. <volume>82</volume>:<fpage>3294</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>3301</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.2527/2004.82113294x</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r22"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kondjoyan</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>S.</given-names> <surname>Oillic</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>S.</given-names> <surname>Portanguen</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>J.-B.</given-names> <surname>Gros</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2013</year>. <article-title>Combined heat transfer and kinetic models to predict cooking loss during heat treatment of beef meat</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>95</volume>:<fpage>336</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>344</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.04.061</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r23"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Laster</surname>, <given-names>M. A.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R. D.</given-names> <surname>Smith</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>K. L.</given-names> <surname>Nicholson</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. D. W.</given-names> <surname>Nicholson</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R. K.</given-names> <surname>Miller</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D. B.</given-names> <surname>Griffin</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>K. B.</given-names> <surname>Harris</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>J. W.</given-names> <surname>Savell</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2008</year>. <article-title>Dry versus wet aging of beef: Retail cutting yields and consumer sensory attribute evaluations of steaks from ribeyes, strip loins, and top sirloins from two quality grade groups</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>80</volume>:<fpage>795</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>804</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2008.03.024</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r24"><mixed-citation publication-type="other"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lenth</surname>, <given-names>R. V.</given-names></string-name></person-group> <year>2020</year>. <article-title>emmeans: estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means</article-title>. <source>R package version 1.5.3.</source> <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans">https://CRAN.R-project.org/package&#x0003D;emmeans</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r25"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lepetit</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>A.</given-names> <surname>Grajales</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>R.</given-names> <surname>Favier</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2000</year>. <article-title>Modelling the effect of sarcomere length on collagen thermal shortening in cooked meat: Consequence on meat toughness</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>54</volume>:<fpage>239</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>250</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1740(99)00086-8</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r26"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lu</surname>, <given-names>X.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>Y.</given-names> <surname>Zhang</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>B.</given-names> <surname>Xu</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>L.</given-names> <surname>Zhu</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>X.</given-names> <surname>Luo</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2020</year>. <article-title>Protein degradation and structure changes of beef muscle during superchilled storage</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>168</volume>:<fpage>108180</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2020.108180</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r27"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lu</surname>, <given-names>X.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>Y.</given-names> <surname>Zhang</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>L.</given-names> <surname>Zhu</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>X.</given-names> <surname>Luo</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>D. L.</given-names> <surname>Hopkins</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2019</year>. <article-title>Effect of superchilled storage on shelf life and quality characteristics of <italic>M. longissimus lumborum</italic> from Chinese Yellow cattle</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>149</volume>:<fpage>79</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>84</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.11.014</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r28"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lusk</surname>, <given-names>J. L.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>T. L.</given-names> <surname>Marsh</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>T. C.</given-names> <surname>Schroeder</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>J. A.</given-names> <surname>Fox</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2001</year>. <article-title>Wholesale demand for USDA quality graded boxed beef and effects of seasonality</article-title>. <source>J Agr Resour Econ</source>. <volume>26</volume>:<fpage>91</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>106</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r29"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lyford</surname>, <given-names>C. P.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. M.</given-names> <surname>Thompson</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R.</given-names> <surname>Polkinghorne</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M.</given-names> <surname>Miller</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>T.</given-names> <surname>Nishimura</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>K.</given-names> <surname>Neath</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>P.</given-names> <surname>Allen</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>E.</given-names> <surname>Belasco</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2010</year>. <article-title>Is willingness to pay (WTP) for beef quality grades affected by consumer demographics and meat consumption preferences?</article-title> <source>Australasian Agribusiness Review</source>. <volume>18</volume>:<fpage>1</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>17</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r30"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Marino</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M.</given-names> <surname>Albenzio</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>A.</given-names> <surname>della Malva</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>A.</given-names> <surname>Santillo</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>P.</given-names> <surname>Loizzo</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>A.</given-names> <surname>Sevi</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2013</year>. <article-title>Proteolytic pattern of myofibrillar protein and meat tenderness as affected by breed and aging time</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>95</volume>:<fpage>281</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>287</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.04.009</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r31"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Martinez</surname>, <given-names>H. A.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>A. N.</given-names> <surname>Arnold</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. C.</given-names> <surname>Brooks</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>C. C.</given-names> <surname>Carr</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>K. B.</given-names> <surname>Gehring</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D. B.</given-names> <surname>Griffin</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D. S.</given-names> <surname>Hale</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>G. G.</given-names> <surname>Mafi</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D. D.</given-names> <surname>Johnson</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>C. L.</given-names> <surname>Lorenzen</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R. J.</given-names> <surname>Maddock</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R. K.</given-names> <surname>Miller</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D. L.</given-names> <surname>VanOverbeke</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>B. E.</given-names> <surname>Wasser</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>J. W.</given-names> <surname>Savell</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2017</year>. <article-title>National Beef Tenderness Survey&#x02014;2015: Palatability and shear force assessments of retail and foodservice beef</article-title>. <source>Meat Muscle Biol</source>. <volume>1</volume>:<fpage>138</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>148</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb2017.05.0028</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r32"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Maughan</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R.</given-names> <surname>Tansawat</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D.</given-names> <surname>Cornforth</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R.</given-names> <surname>Ward</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>S.</given-names> <surname>Martini</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2012</year>. <article-title>Development of a beef flavor lexicon and its application to compare the flavor profile and consumer acceptance of rib steaks from grass- or grain-fed cattle</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>90</volume>:<fpage>116</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>121</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2011.06.006</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r33"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Miller</surname>, <given-names>M. F.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. A.</given-names> <surname>Carr</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>C. B.</given-names> <surname>Ramsey</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>K. L.</given-names> <surname>Crockett</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>L. C.</given-names> <surname>Hoover</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2001</year>. <article-title>Consumer thresholds for establishing the value of beef tenderness</article-title>. <source>J Anim Sci</source>. <volume>79</volume>:<fpage>3062</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>3068</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.2527/2001.79123062x</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r34"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Miller</surname>, <given-names>M. F.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>L. C.</given-names> <surname>Hoover</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>K. D.</given-names> <surname>Cook</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>A. L.</given-names> <surname>Guerra</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>K. L.</given-names> <surname>Huffman</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>K. S.</given-names> <surname>Tinney</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>C. B.</given-names> <surname>Ramsey</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>H. C.</given-names> <surname>Brittin</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>L. M.</given-names> <surname>Huffman</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>1995</year>. <article-title>Consumer acceptability of beef steak tenderness in the home and restaurant</article-title>. <source>J Food Sci</source>. <volume>60</volume>:<fpage>963</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>965</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1995.tb06271.x</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r35"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Nair</surname>, <given-names>M. N.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>A. C. V. C. S.</given-names> <surname>Canto</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>G.</given-names> <surname>Rentfrow</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>S. P.</given-names> <surname>Suman</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2019</year>. <article-title>Muscle-specific effect of aging on beef tenderness</article-title>. <source>LWT</source> <volume>100</volume>:<fpage>250</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>252</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2018.10.038</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r36"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>O&#x02019;Quinn</surname>, <given-names>T. G.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. F.</given-names> <surname>Legako</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. C.</given-names> <surname>Brooks</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>M. F.</given-names> <surname>Miller</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2018</year>. <article-title>Evaluation of the contribution of tenderness, juiciness, and flavor to the overall consumer beef eating experience</article-title>. <source>Translational Animal Science</source> <volume>2</volume>:<fpage>26</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>36</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txx008</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r37"><mixed-citation publication-type="book"><collab>R Core Team</collab>. <year>2020</year>. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. <publisher-name>R Foundation for Statistical Computing</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Vienna, Austria</publisher-loc>. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.R-project.org/">https://www.R-project.org/</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r38"><mixed-citation publication-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ramanathan</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>G. G.</given-names> <surname>Mafi</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>L.</given-names> <surname>Yoder</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M.</given-names> <surname>Perry</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M.</given-names> <surname>Pfeiffer</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D. L.</given-names> <surname>VanOverbeke</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>N. B.</given-names> <surname>Maheswarappa</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2020</year>. <chapter-title>Chapter 5 - Biochemical changes of postmortem meat during the aging process and strategies to improve the meat quality</chapter-title>. In: <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><given-names>A. K.</given-names> <surname>Biswas</surname></string-name> and <string-name><given-names>P. K.</given-names> <surname>Mandal</surname></string-name></person-group>, editors, Meat quality analysis. <publisher-name>Academic Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>London</publisher-loc>. p.&#x000A0;<fpage>67</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>80</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-819233-7.00005-7</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r39"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Shackelford</surname>, <given-names>S. D.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>T. L.</given-names> <surname>Wheeler</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. K.</given-names> <surname>Meade</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. O.</given-names> <surname>Reagan</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>B. L.</given-names> <surname>Byrnes</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>M.</given-names> <surname>Koohmaraie</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2001</year>. <article-title>Consumer impressions of Tender Select beef</article-title>. <source>J Anim Sci</source>. <volume>79</volume>:<fpage>2605</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>2614</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.2527/2001.79102605x</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r40"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Small</surname>, <given-names>A. H.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>I.</given-names> <surname>Jenson</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>A.</given-names> <surname>Kiermeier</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>J.</given-names> <surname>Sumner</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2012</year>. <article-title>Vacuum-packed beef primals with extremely long shelf life have unusual microbiological counts</article-title>. <source>J Food Protect</source>. <volume>75</volume>:<fpage>1524</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>1527</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.4315/0362-028X.JFP-12-042</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r41"><mixed-citation publication-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Smith</surname>, <given-names>G. C.</given-names></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>Z. L.</given-names> <surname>Carpenter</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>1974</year>. <chapter-title>Eating quality of meat animal products and their fat content</chapter-title>. In: <source>Fat content and composition of animal products: Proc. of a symposium</source>, <publisher-loc>Washington, DC</publisher-loc>, December 12&#x02013;13, 1974. <publisher-name>National Academies Press</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Washington, DC</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r42"><mixed-citation publication-type="other"><collab>U.S. Department of Agriculture, Economic Research Service (USDA-ERS)</collab>. <year>2022</year>. <article-title>Livestock and meat domestic data</article-title>. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/livestock-and-meat-domestic-data/livestock-and-meat-domestic-data/">https://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/livestock-and-meat-domestic-data/livestock-and-meat-domestic-data/</ext-link>. (Accessed February 18, 2022.)</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r43"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Wang</surname>, <given-names>Y.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>H.</given-names> <surname>Liang</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R.</given-names> <surname>Xu</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>B.</given-names> <surname>Lu</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>X.</given-names> <surname>Song</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>B.</given-names> <surname>Liu</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2020</year>. <article-title>Effects of temperature fluctuations on the meat quality and muscle microstructure of frozen beef</article-title>. <source>Int J Refrig</source>. <volume>116</volume>:<fpage>1</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>8</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijrefrig.2019.12.025</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r44"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Wheeler</surname>, <given-names>T.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R. K.</given-names> <surname>Miller</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. W.</given-names> <surname>Savell</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>H. R.</given-names> <surname>Cross</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>1990</year>. <article-title>Palatability of chilled and frozen beef steaks</article-title>. <source>J Food Sci</source>. <volume>55</volume>:<fpage>301</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>304</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1990.tb06748.x</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r45"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Yang</surname>, <given-names>X.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>B.</given-names> <surname>Xu</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>X.</given-names> <surname>Zhang</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>X.</given-names> <surname>Luo</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>Y.</given-names> <surname>Zhang</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>Y.</given-names> <surname>Mao</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>R.</given-names> <surname>Liang</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2022</year>. <article-title>Shelf-life extension of chilled and superchilled dark-cutting beef held under combined anoxic master packaging and high-oxygen packaging both enriched with carbon dioxide</article-title>. <source>Food Packaging and Shelf Life</source> <volume>34</volume>:<fpage>100940</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fpsl.2022.100940</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r46"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Zhang</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>X.</given-names> <surname>Chen</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>X.</given-names> <surname>Duan</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>B. W. B.</given-names> <surname>Holman</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>L.</given-names> <surname>Zhu</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>X.</given-names> <surname>Yang</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D. L.</given-names> <surname>Hopkins</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>X.</given-names> <surname>Luo</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>B.</given-names> <surname>Sun</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>Y.</given-names> <surname>Zhang</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2023</year>. <article-title>The retail color characteristics of vacuum-packaged beef m. <italic>longissimus lumborum</italic> following long-term superchilled storage</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci.</source> <volume>196</volume>:<fpage>109050</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.109050</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref></ref-list><app-group><app><p><table-wrap id="tab2"><label>Supplemental Table 1:</label><caption><p>Demographic characteristics of consumers (N&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;238) who participated in the consumer sensory panels.</p></caption><table><colgroup><col align="left"/><col align="center"/><col align="char" char="."/></colgroup><thead><tr><th>Characteristic</th><th align="center">Response</th><th align="center">Percentage of consumers</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><bold>Gender</bold></td><td>Male</td><td>50%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Female</td><td>48%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Other</td><td>2%</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Age group</bold></td><td>Under 20&#x000A0;years old</td><td>11%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>20 to 29&#x000A0;years old</td><td>49%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>30 to 39&#x000A0;years old</td><td>21%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>40 to 49&#x000A0;years old</td><td>7%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>50 to 59&#x000A0;years old</td><td>8%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Over 60&#x000A0;years old</td><td>4%</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Ethnic origin</bold></td><td>African-American</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Asian</td><td>6%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Caucasian/white</td><td>65%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Hispanic</td><td>21%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Native American</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Mixed race</td><td>2%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Other</td><td>5%</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Marital status</bold></td><td>Single</td><td>65%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Married</td><td>35%</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Household size</bold></td><td>1 person</td><td>29%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>2 people</td><td>36%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>3 people</td><td>17%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>4 people</td><td>10%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>5 people</td><td>4%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>6 people</td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="8"><bold>Annual household income</bold></td><td>Under $25,000</td><td>37%</td></tr><tr><td>$25,000 to $34,999</td><td>5%</td></tr><tr><td>$35,000 to $49,999</td><td>10%</td></tr><tr><td>$50,000 to $74,999</td><td>12%</td></tr><tr><td>$75,000 to $99,999</td><td>10%</td></tr><tr><td>$100,000 to 149,999</td><td>16%</td></tr><tr><td>$150,000 to $199,999</td><td>4%</td></tr><tr><td>&#x0003E; $199,999</td><td>5%</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Education level</bold></td><td>Non-high school graduate</td><td>2%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>High school graduate</td><td>7%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Some college/technical school</td><td>26%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>College graduate</td><td>34%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Post-college graduate</td><td>31%</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5"><bold>Preferred beef degree of doneness</bold></td><td>Very rare</td><td>2%</td></tr><tr><td>Rare</td><td>6%</td></tr><tr><td>Medium rare</td><td>49%</td></tr><tr><td>Medium</td><td>26%</td></tr><tr><td>Medium well</td><td>12%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Well done</td><td>4%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Very well done</td><td>2%</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5"><bold>Beef consumption per week</bold></td><td>Every other week</td><td>4%</td></tr><tr><td>Weekly</td><td>15%</td></tr><tr><td>2 to 3 times a week</td><td>37%</td></tr><tr><td>4 to 5 times a week</td><td>19%</td></tr><tr><td>Daily</td><td>25%</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></p></app></app-group></back></article>