<?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.17761</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>Beef Chuck, Sirloin and Round Determined Suitable for Use as Beef Finger Steaks</article-title><alt-title alt-title-type="right-running">Epperson et al.&#x02003;&#x02003;&#x02003;&#x02003;&#x02003;&#x02003;&#x02003;&#x02003;Battered application of beef products</alt-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Epperson</surname><given-names>B. S.</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Van Buren</surname><given-names>J. B.</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Heimbuch</surname><given-names>M. L.</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Oliver</surname><given-names>K. F.</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Jepsen</surname><given-names>S. M.</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Nasados</surname><given-names>J. A.</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Price</surname><given-names>W. J.</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Haggerty</surname><given-names>R. J.</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Colle</surname><given-names>M. J.</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><name><surname>Bass</surname><given-names>P. D.</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1">&#x0002A;</xref></contrib><aff id="aff1"><label><sup>1</sup></label>Department of Animal, Veterinary, &#x00026; Food Sciences, <institution>University of Idaho</institution>, Moscow, ID 83844, USA</aff><aff id="aff2"><label><sup>2</sup></label>Statistical Programs, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, <institution>University of Idaho</institution>, Moscow, ID 83844, USA</aff><aff id="aff3"><label><sup>3</sup></label>Director of International Programs, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, <institution>University of Idaho</institution>, Moscow, ID 83844, USA</aff></contrib-group><author-notes><corresp id="cor1"><label>&#x0002A;</label>Corresponding author. Email: <email>pbass@uidaho.edu</email> (P. D. Bass)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date date-type="epub" publication-format="electronic"><day>00</day><month>00</month><year>0000</year></pub-date><volume>8</volume><issue>1</issue><fpage>1</fpage><lpage>8</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>01</day><month>03</month><year>2024</year></date><date date-type="accepted"><day>04</day><month>05</month><year>2024</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#x000A9; 2024 Epperson, Van Buren, Heimbuch, Oliver, Jepsen, Nasados, Price, Haggerty, Colle, and Bass.</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2024</copyright-year><copyright-holder>&#x000A9; 2024 Epperson, Van Buren, Heimbuch, Oliver, Jepsen, Nasados, Price, Haggerty, Colle, and Bass.</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>Finger steaks, an Idaho culinary tradition, are historically made with beef loin cuts which command a higher value than other beef primals. The primary objective of the current study was to evaluate tenderness and sensory characteristics of beef finger steaks made from the loin and lower valued cuts from the chuck, sirloin, and round. Beef cuts conforming to the Institutional Meat Purchasing Specifications (IMPS) included strip loins (IMPS #180), top rounds (IMPS #169A), clod hearts (IMPS #114E), and top sirloins (IMPS #184B) from USDA Choice carcasses (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;12) that were aged for 21 d. Following the aging period, all subprimals were fabricated into strips (1.27&#x000A0;cm&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;1.27&#x000A0;cm&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;7.62&#x000A0;cm), breaded and fried. Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF) was conducted on each treatment to assess objective tenderness. Consumer sensory panelists (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;120) and trained sensory panelists (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;7) assessed each muscle based on the following traits: appearance, flavor, and tenderness. In addition, the consumer sensory panel assessed overall product acceptability. Objective tenderness differed (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.01) between treatments with strip loin and top sirloin being the most tender. Consumer sensory panels indicated a difference in acceptability (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.01), tenderness (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.01), juiciness (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.01), and flavor (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.01) between treatments. The beef strip loin samples had mean consumer acceptability values greater than the other muscles in nearly all palatability categories (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05). Trained panelists identified the clod heart as having superior juiciness (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;0.02) while the top round samples were identified as having a lower tenderness value compared to the other treatments (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;0.01). Based on their mean WBSF and sensory panel results, meat from the chuck and round were determined to be acceptable alternatives to the current traditional higher cost loin cuts commonly used for beef finger steak production.</p></abstract><kwd-group><title>Key words:</title><kwd>beef</kwd><kwd>battered product</kwd><kwd>consumer acceptability</kwd><kwd>underutilized</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="sec1"><title>Introduction</title><p>An Idaho culinary tradition known as the &#x0201C;finger steak&#x0201D; appeared in the 1960s and is believed to be created by a restaurateur in Boise, Idaho, who originally breaded and battered a bitesize product made from beef tenderloin (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r13">Guilhem, 2017</xref>). Contemporarily, the tenderloin can be quite cost prohibitive with an average weekly wholesale cost of nearly $25 per kilogram (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r32">USDA-NASS, 2023</xref>). With the consumption of battered and breaded meat products increasing over the last 40&#x000A0;years (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r7">Barbut, 2013</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r8">Barbut, 2015</xref>), as well as the rising cost of beef cuts in the US (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r31">USDA-ERS, 2024</xref>), there is a demand to look at lower-cost alternative cuts. More recently, the beef finger steak is often made from the beef strip loin; however, cuts from the beef sirloin, chuck and round are generally less costly and are often underutilized compared to cuts from the rib and loin sections (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r34">Von Seggern et&#x000A0;al., 2005</xref>).</p><p>The current study was conducted to determine if differences between traditional and alternative beef cuts used in beef finger steaks can be observed through consumer acceptance assessments and tenderness values.</p></sec><sec id="sec2"><title>Materials and Methods</title><sec id="sec2.1"><title>Product preparation</title><p>Commercially available United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Choice beef subprimals fabricated according to the Institutional Meat Purchasing Specifications (IMPS) were obtained from a commercial beef harvest facility. The subprimals that were used in the study were obtained from carcasses that were of native beef cattle origin, finished on a conventional North American concentrate ration, and harvested under USDA inspection. Carcasses chilled at 0&#x000B0;C; for 24&#x000A0;h prior to fabrication. Beef subprimals assessed in the study were boneless strip loins (IMPS #180, <italic>longissimus lumborum</italic>), top rounds (IMPS #169A, <italic>semimembranosus</italic> [SM]), clod hearts (IMPS #114E, <italic>triceps brachii</italic> [TB]), and center-cut top sirloins (IMPS #184B, <italic>gluteus medius</italic>). The subprimals were transported from the slaughter facility under refrigeration (3.5&#x000A0;h; 4&#x000B0;C) to the University of Idaho Meat Laboratory. Twelve of each subprimal were used for the study. The vacuum-sealed subprimals were allowed to age at 0&#x000B0;C for 21 d post-fabrication. Following the aging period, all raw products were trimmed of external fat before further fabrication. The subprimals were cut with the grain using a mechanical meat slicer (Berkel, Louisville, Kentucky) to 1.27&#x000A0;cm thickness. Following the slicer, steaks were fabricated, once again with the grain, using the Strip Cutter and Tenderizer S111 (Bizerba International, Balingen, Germany) with a 1.27&#x000A0;cm stripping cradle to obtain beef strips of 1.27&#x000A0;cm&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;1.27&#x000A0;cm&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;7.62&#x000A0;cm in dimension. Raw finger steak strips were sorted to remove pieces containing connective tissue, cartilage, and excess fat. The finger steaks that met the dimensional requirements and visual selection were vacuum packaged, frozen at &#x02212;20&#x000B0;C, and assigned to subsequent analysis groups including WBSF and sensory taste panels. Product remained in constant frozen storage for 6&#x000A0;mo, in the &#x02212;20&#x000B0;C environment, prior to further assessments being conducted.</p></sec><sec id="sec2.2"><title>Preparation</title><p>A batter was formulated within guidelines commonly applied to battered meat products (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r17">Loewe, 2011</xref>). The formulated batter is presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab1">Table&#x000A0;1</xref>. Finger steaks were tempered for 24&#x000A0;h at 4&#x000B0;C prior to battering and cooking. Finger steaks were cooked in cooking oil at 188&#x000B0;C (Great Value Vegetable Oil, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Bentonville, AR) in a countertop electric fryer (Avantco F102 Dual Tank Electric Countertop Fryers, Avantco Equipment, Meridian, ID) to an internal temperature of 71&#x000B0;C. Fry time was determined at 2.5&#x000A0;min in pre-trials to meet 71&#x000B0;C degrees of internal temperature doneness for the finger steaks. For each muscle, initial weights (g) were recorded and used to calculate batter pick-up. The term &#x0201C;pick-up,&#x0201D; or percentage batter present, refers to the amount of coating material adhering to the product and is based on the final weight (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r30">USDA-AMS, 2014</xref>). Pick-up was calculated as: <disp-formula><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>&#x02009;</mml:mo><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>&#x02212;</mml:mo><mml:mi>u</mml:mi><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:mrow><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>&#x02009;</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>&#x02009;</mml:mtext><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>&#x02009;</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>&#x02009;</mml:mtext><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>g</mml:mi><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mo>&#x02212;</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mtext>&#x02009;</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>&#x02009;</mml:mtext><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>g</mml:mi><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi>F</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>s</mml:mi><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>&#x02009;</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>&#x02009;</mml:mtext><mml:mi>f</mml:mi><mml:mi>r</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mtext>&#x02009;</mml:mtext><mml:mtext>&#x02009;</mml:mtext><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mi>g</mml:mi><mml:mi>h</mml:mi><mml:mi>t</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>&#x000D7;</mml:mo><mml:mn>100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula></p><table-wrap id="tab1"><label>Table 1.</label><caption><p>Batter recipe used for beef finger steak production</p></caption><table><colgroup><col align="left"/><col align="char" char="."/></colgroup><thead><tr><th>Ingredient</th><th>Amount(g)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><bold>Pre-dust</bold></td><td/></tr><tr><td>All-Purpose Flour</td><td>400g</td></tr></tbody></table><table><colgroup><col/><col align="char" char="."/></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Wet ingredients</th><th align="center"/></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Eggs</td><td align="center">56g</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Buttermilk</td><td align="center">217g</td></tr></tbody></table><table><colgroup><col/><col align="char" char="."/></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left">Dry ingredients</th><th align="center"/></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">All-Purpose Flour</td><td align="center">300g</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Garlic Powder</td><td align="center">15g</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Paprika</td><td align="center">15g</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Salt</td><td align="center">15g</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Pepper</td><td align="center">15g</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Cornstarch</td><td align="center">100g</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec><sec id="sec2.3"><title>Warner-Bratzler shear force</title><p>WBSF was used to evaluate objective tenderness of finger steak treatments. There were (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;72) samples evaluated per treatment. Cooked finger steak samples were allowed to equilibrate to room temperature prior to shearing. Each sample was sheared perpendicular to the muscle fiber orientation using a WBSF machine (G-R Manufacturing, Manhattan, KS) at a crosshead speed of 225&#x000A0;mm/s. Peak shear force in kilograms of force (kgf) measurements were recorded and averaged to obtain a single shear force value for each subprimal. Additionally, shear force data were analyzed qualitatively to evaluate the proportion of pieces acceptable at USDA tenderness thresholds of 4.4 and 3.9&#x000A0;kg of shear force which are representative of USDA &#x0201C;tender&#x0201D; and &#x0201C;very tender&#x0201D;, respectively (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r4">ASTM, 2008</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="sec2.4"><title>Consumer taste panel</title><p>The study was found to be exempt by the University of Idaho Institutional Review Board (IRB Protocol 21-100, Reference No. 013095). Samples were assigned, and panels set up in accordance with American Meat Science Association (AMSA) guidelines (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r2">AMSA, 2016</xref>). All panelists (<italic>N</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;120) provided written, informed consent for inclusion prior to their participation in the study. Before sampling and evaluations, panelists were given verbal instructions and any necessary forms. Consumer panelists were instructed that the study was investigating beef finger steaks. It was a requirement that panelists were a minimum of 18&#x000A0;years old and identified as consumers of beef. Prior to sampling panelists were asked to complete a demographics survey. Three separate panels were conducted with a minimum target of 40 panel participants per panel. Within each panel, samples were assigned to panelists according to a complete block design which represented all muscle treatments equally. To minimize bias, panelists were randomly assigned 3-digit, blind-coded samples. Each panelist was provided with a ballot to evaluate each sample along with an expectorant cup, a cup of room temperature water, unsalted soda crackers (Premium Unsalted Tops Saltine Crackers, Mondelez Global LLC, East Hanover, NJ), a toothpick, and a napkin. Panelists were then asked to evaluate a finger steak sample from each subprimal treatment group based on the following traits: overall acceptability, appearance, flavor, juiciness, tenderness, color of the coating, and amount of coating using a 10-point hedonic scale where 1&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;dislike extremely and 10&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;like extremely. In addition, consumers were asked if they would make future purchases for the sample with options of &#x0201C;yes&#x0201D; or &#x0201C;no/unsure.&#x0201D; Order of treatment samples was randomized to account for order bias.</p></sec><sec id="sec2.5"><title>Trained taste panel</title><p>Samples and panels were assigned in accordance with AMSA guidelines (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r2">AMSA, 2016</xref>). However, AMSA guidelines do not account specifically for battered beef products leading to the current study having to incorporate sensory guidelines from other battered proteins to expand the knowledge on battered beef. Subjective evaluations of appearance, texture, and binding were measured using guidelines set forth in Batters and Breading in Food Processing (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r17">Loewe, 2011</xref>). Additionally, Meilgaard et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r22">2006</xref>) assessments for crispiness were utilized. Reference standards were used to help illustrate attributes and can be reviewed in <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab2">Table&#x000A0;2</xref>. Twenty-eight finger steaks from each subprimal were assessed for trained sensory evaluation. Training occurred for 4 d, twice a day, and each session was an hour long. Trained panelists (<italic>N</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;7) evaluated finger steaks from each muscle based on the following traits: coating appearance, batter adhesion, crispiness, juiciness, tenderness, beef flavor intensity, and overall flavor intensity. Panelists rated the sensory attributes on a 1 to 10 scale with anchor points at each end where 1&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;extremely poor appearance/poor batter adhesion/soft/dry/tough/bland/lacking flavor intensity and 10&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;extremely good appearance/good batter adhesion/crispy/juicy/tender/flavor/intense flavor. The assessors used direct entry into a computerized survey (Qualtrics XM, Seattle, WA) to record their results. This allowed for performance to be monitored regularly to provide feedback until the panelists had a clear understanding of all attributes. Order of treatment samples was randomized to account for order bias.</p><table-wrap id="tab2"><label>Table 2.</label><caption><p>Definitions and anchors of sensory attributes for trained sensory panel</p></caption><table><colgroup><col align="center"/><col align="center"/><col align="center"/></colgroup><thead><tr><th>Sensory attribute</th><th align="center">Definition</th><th align="center">Reference</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><bold>Appearance</bold></td><td>Coating color evenness on the surface of the product<break/>Meilgaard et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r22">2006</xref>)</td><td><italic>Less</italic>: Tofu<break/><italic>Very:</italic> Ginger snap</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Batter adhesion</bold></td><td>Act as a &#x02018;glue&#x02019; to bind subsequent layer to the substrate<break/>Loewe (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r17">2011</xref>)</td><td><italic>Less</italic>: Zucchini chip<break/><italic>Very:</italic> Chicken nugget</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Crispiness</bold></td><td>The force (noise) with which a product breaks or fractures characterized by many small breaks Meilgaard et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r22">2006</xref>)</td><td><italic>Less</italic>: Granola bar<break/><italic>Very:</italic> Melba toast</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Juiciness</bold></td><td>Amount of liquid released during the first bite using the molar teeth<break/>AMSA (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r2">2016</xref>)</td><td><italic>Less:</italic> Eye of round steak grilled to 90&#x000B0;C<break/><italic>Very</italic>: Strip loin steak grilled to 60&#x000B0;C</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Tenderness</bold></td><td>Necessary force to bite (first bite) the meat sample using incisor teeth<break/>AMSA (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r2">2016</xref>)</td><td><italic>Less</italic>: Old cow steak grilled to 70&#x000B0;C<break/><italic>Very</italic>: Tenderloin steaks grilled to 65&#x000B0;C</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Beef flavor intensity</bold></td><td>Amount of beef flavor intensity in the sample (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r2">AMSA 2016</xref>). The Beef flavor lexicon defined by Adhikari et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r1">2011</xref>)</td><td><italic>Less:</italic> Swanson&#x02019;s beef broth<break/><italic>Very:</italic> Beef brisket</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Overall flavor intensity</bold></td><td>A measurement of the strength of a flavor in a particular food<break/>AMSA (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r2">2016</xref>)</td><td><italic>Less:</italic> 80% lean ground beef cooked to 70&#x000B0;C<break/><italic>Very:</italic> 80% lean ground beef cooked to 70&#x000B0;C mixed with 30% Swanson&#x02019;s beef broth</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap></sec><sec id="sec2.6"><title>Statistical analysis</title><p>WBSF and consumer sensory panel data were analyzed using SAS V9.4 (SAS Institute, Inc., Cary, NC). Individual subprimal cuts (strip loins, clod hearts, top sirloins, and top rounds) served as the experimental units (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;12); thereby, 12 replications per treatment were observed. The experiment was set up as a randomized complete block design. Yield, WBSF, and consumer and trained panel responses were used as dependent variables. A generalized linear mixed model was used to fit the data where treatments were fixed effects and blocks (sensory panels days) by treatment were random effects. A binary distribution analysis was assessed for willingness to purchase responses. Differences in the estimated marginal means were compared through pair-wise comparisons. Significance was interpreted at <italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05.</p></sec></sec><sec id="sec3"><title>Results and Discussion</title><sec id="sec3.1"><title>Processing and pick-up yields</title><p>Batter &#x0201C;pick-up&#x0201D; and product yield was assessed for all muscles in the cooking process. <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab3">Table&#x000A0;3</xref> depicts the results for each muscle&#x02019;s average weight in grams and the batter pick-up percentages. &#x0201C;Pick-up&#x0201D; and &#x0201C;yield&#x0201D; are commonly used terms when producing battered products. It can be cost-beneficial to add a high percentage of pick-up for product acceptance without loss of quality (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r17">Loewe, 2011</xref>). The term &#x0201C;pick-up&#x0201D; or percentage batter present refers to the amount of coating material adhering to the product and is based on the final weight (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r30">USDA-AMS, 2014</xref>). Variation was observed between the subprimals indicating that the top round had the highest batter pick-up percentage compared to the clod heart, which had the lowest pick-up percentage (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05). Overall, many factors can affect the coating operation, ranging from meat surface to batter viscosity and temperature, breading size, and frying temperature (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r8">Barbut, 2015</xref>). In the current study, because the top round was adhering the most batter, one could postulate a greater saleable product yield potential of that cut using the current batter procedure.</p><table-wrap id="tab3"><label>Table 3.</label><caption><p>Results for muscle average weight in grams and the batter pick-up percentages (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;12)</p></caption><table><colgroup><col align="left"/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/></colgroup><thead><tr><th/><th>Strip Loin</th><th>Clod Heart</th><th>Top Round</th><th>Top Sirloin</th><th align="center">SEM</th><th align="center"><italic>P</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><bold>Initial Weight (g)</bold></td><td>11.5</td><td>13.0</td><td>13.2</td><td>12.0</td><td>0.7</td><td>0.20</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Pre-dust Weight (g)</bold></td><td>12.5</td><td>13.8</td><td>14.1</td><td>12.9</td><td>0.8</td><td>0.38</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Wet Ingredient Weight (g)</bold></td><td>15.2</td><td>16.6</td><td>17.4</td><td>15.3</td><td>0.9</td><td>0.25</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Batter Weight (g)</bold></td><td>16.3<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab3-fn1"><sup>b</sup></xref></td><td>18.2<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab3-fn1"><sup>ab</sup></xref></td><td>20.4<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab3-fn1"><sup>a</sup></xref></td><td>17.2<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab3-fn1"><sup>b</sup></xref></td><td>1.1</td><td>0.03</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Fried Weight (g)</bold></td><td>12.4<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab3-fn1"><sup>b</sup></xref></td><td>13.6<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab3-fn1"><sup>ab</sup></xref></td><td>15.5<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab3-fn1"><sup>a</sup></xref></td><td>13.0<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab3-fn1"><sup>b</sup></xref></td><td>0.8</td><td>0.04</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Batter Pick-up (%)</bold></td><td>7.0<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab3-fn1"><sup>b</sup></xref></td><td>3.5<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab3-fn1"><sup>b</sup></xref></td><td>14.0<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab3-fn1"><sup>a</sup></xref></td><td>7.81<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab3-fn1"><sup>b</sup></xref></td><td>&#x0003C;0.1</td><td>&#x0003C; 0.01</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn id="tab3-fn1"><label><sup>a,b</sup></label><p>Means within a row without a common superscript differ (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05).</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap></sec><sec id="sec3.2"><title>Warner-Bratzler shear force</title><p>Mean WBSF differences were observed between treatments where the strip loin was more tender than all other muscle treatments (<xref ref-type="table" rid="tab4">Table&#x000A0;4</xref>; <italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05). The top round had the highest average WBSF mean of 3.73 kgf. To be considered &#x0201C;tender&#x0201D; and &#x0201C;very tender,&#x0201D; shear force values must be below the USDA thresholds of 4.4 and 3.9 kgf, respectively (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r4">ASTM, 2008</xref>, <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r5">ASTM, 2011</xref>). <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab3">Table&#x000A0;3</xref> demonstrates that all treatment means were considered &#x0201C;very tender&#x0201D; based on USDA thresholds. Previous research has grouped muscles into tenderness classifications of tender, intermediate and tough. These levels are based on thresholds for tenderness identified by Shackelford et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r29">1991</xref>) and Huffman et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r14">1996</xref>). Muscles deemed tough had a WBSF value of &#x0003E;4.6 kgf, tender muscles had a WBSF value of &#x0003C;3.9 kgf, and intermediate muscles had WBSF values between 3.9 and 4.6 kgf. The previous research of Shackelford et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r29">1991</xref>) and Huffman et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r14">1996</xref>) classified the TB and the SM muscles as intermediate tenderness while the <italic>gluteus medius</italic> muscle was classified as tough. In contrast, the muscles in the current research were all deemed very tender. The 2015 National Beef Tenderness Survey (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r19">Martinez et&#x000A0;al., 2017</xref>) noted top round steaks had higher WBSF values compared to other loin muscles and advised processors and merchandisers to increase post-fabrication aging times to improve consumer acceptance of beef steaks.</p><table-wrap id="tab4"><label>Table 4.</label><caption><p>Estimated means for WBSF (kgf) for each subprimal (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;12)</p></caption><table><colgroup><col align="left"/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/></colgroup><thead><tr><th/><th>Strip loin</th><th>Clod heart</th><th>Top round</th><th>Top sirloin</th><th>SEM</th><th><italic>P</italic> value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><bold>WBSF<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab4-fn2"><sup>1</sup></xref> (kgf)</bold></td><td>2.85<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab4-fn1"><sup>b</sup></xref></td><td>3.51<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab4-fn1"><sup>a</sup></xref></td><td>3.74<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab4-fn1"><sup>a</sup></xref></td><td>3.44<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab4-fn1"/></td><td>0.16</td><td>&#x0003C; 0.01</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn id="tab4-fn1"><label><sup>a,b</sup></label><p>Means without a common superscript differ (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05).</p></fn><fn id="tab4-fn2"><label><sup>1</sup></label><p>Warner-Bratzler shear force.</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap></sec><sec id="sec3.3"><title>Consumer sensory analysis</title><p>Consumer sensory panelists were recruited in the state of Idaho. Consumer demographics are reported in <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab5">Table&#x000A0;5</xref>. The consumer group of 53 men and 63 women were between 18 and 91&#x000A0;years. Moreover, the data presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab5">Table&#x000A0;5</xref> indicated that almost half of the panelists eat beef 2 to 4 times per week. Consumer sensory panel results (<xref ref-type="table" rid="tab6">Table&#x000A0;6</xref>) indicated a difference in overall acceptability (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.01), flavor (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.01), tenderness (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.01), and juiciness (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.01) between treatments. As could have been anticipated, the strip loin outperformed the other cuts in tenderness, juiciness, and overall acceptability.</p><table-wrap id="tab5"><label>Table 5.</label><caption><p>Consumer taste panel summary statistics of panelist demographics (<italic>N</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;120)</p></caption><table><colgroup><col align="left"/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/></colgroup><thead><tr><th/><th><italic>n</italic></th><th>%</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic><bold>Age</bold></italic></td><td/><td/></tr><tr><td>18&#x02013;19</td><td>9</td><td>7.5</td></tr><tr><td>20&#x02013;29</td><td>49</td><td>40.8</td></tr><tr><td>30&#x02013;39</td><td>18</td><td>15.0</td></tr><tr><td>40&#x02013;49</td><td>18</td><td>15.0</td></tr><tr><td>50&#x0002B;</td><td>26</td><td>21.7</td></tr></tbody></table><table><colgroup><col/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left"><italic>Gender</italic></th><th align="center"/><th align="center"/></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Male</td><td align="center">53</td><td align="center">44.2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Female</td><td align="center">63</td><td align="center">52.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Not Indicated</td><td align="center">4</td><td align="center">3.3</td></tr></tbody></table><table><colgroup><col/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left"><italic>Beef  Consumed Per Week</italic><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab5-fn1"><sup>1</sup></xref></th><th align="center"/><th align="center"/></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">0&#x02013;1</td><td align="center">8</td><td align="center">6.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">2&#x02013;4</td><td align="center">59</td><td align="center">49.2</td></tr><tr><td align="left">5&#x02013;7</td><td align="center">44</td><td align="center">36.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">8&#x0002B;</td><td align="center">8</td><td align="center">6.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Not Indicated</td><td align="center">1</td><td align="center">0.8</td></tr></tbody></table><table><colgroup><col/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/></colgroup><thead><tr><th align="left"><italic>Most Consumed</italic><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab5-fn2"><sup>2</sup></xref></th><th align="center"/><th align="center"/></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td align="left">Ground</td><td align="center">64</td><td align="center">53.3</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Roast</td><td align="center">2</td><td align="center">1.7</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Steak</td><td align="center">33</td><td align="center">27.5</td></tr><tr><td align="left">Other</td><td align="center">21</td><td align="center">17.5</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn id="tab5-fn1"><label><sup>1</sup></label><p>Please indicate the number of meals a week in which you consume beef: 0&#x02013;1, 2&#x02013;4, 5&#x02013;7, 8&#x0002B;.</p></fn><fn id="tab5-fn2"><label><sup>2</sup></label><p>Please indicate the form in which you most commonly consume beef: Ground, Roast, Steak, Other.</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><table-wrap id="tab6"><label>Table 6.</label><caption><p>Mean consumer sensory panel scores for overall acceptability, flavor, juiciness, tenderness, coating, and appearance for strip loin (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;12), clod heart (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;12), top round (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;12), and top sirloin (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;12) of beef finger steaks</p></caption><table><colgroup><col align="left"/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/></colgroup><thead><tr><th/><th>Strip loin</th><th>Clod heart</th><th>Top round</th><th>Top sirloin</th><th>SEM</th><th><italic>P</italic></th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><bold>Overall acceptability</bold><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn2"><sup>1</sup></xref></td><td>8.6<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn1"><sup>a</sup></xref></td><td>7.9<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn1"><sup>b</sup></xref></td><td>7.4<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn1"><sup>c</sup></xref></td><td>7.8<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn1"><sup>b</sup></xref></td><td>0.1</td><td>&#x0003C;0.01</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Flavor</bold><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn3"><sup>2</sup></xref></td><td>8.2<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn1"><sup>a</sup></xref></td><td>7.9<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn1"><sup>a</sup></xref></td><td>7.4<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn1"><sup>b</sup></xref></td><td>7.8<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn1"><sup>a</sup></xref></td><td>0.2</td><td>&#x0003C;0.01</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Juiciness</bold><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn4"><sup>3</sup></xref></td><td>7.6<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn1"><sup>a</sup></xref></td><td>7.0<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn1"><sup>b</sup></xref></td><td>6.6<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn1"><sup>b</sup></xref></td><td>6.7<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn1"><sup>b</sup></xref></td><td>0.2</td><td>&#x0003C;0.01</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Tenderness</bold><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn5"><sup>4</sup></xref></td><td>9.2<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn1"><sup>a</sup></xref></td><td>7.8<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn1"><sup>b</sup></xref></td><td>6.8<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn1"><sup>c</sup></xref></td><td>7.7<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn1"><sup>bc</sup></xref></td><td>0.3</td><td>&#x0003C;0.01</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Coating</bold><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn6"><sup>5</sup></xref></td><td>8.3<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn1"><sup>a</sup></xref></td><td>7.9<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn1"><sup>b</sup></xref></td><td>7.8<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn1"><sup>b</sup></xref></td><td>7.8<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn1"><sup>b</sup></xref></td><td>0.2</td><td>0.04</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Appearance</bold><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn7"><sup>6</sup></xref></td><td>8.5<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn1"><sup>a</sup></xref></td><td>8.0<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn1"><sup>b</sup></xref></td><td>8.1<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn1"><sup>ab</sup></xref></td><td>8.0<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab6-fn1"><sup>b</sup></xref></td><td>0.1</td><td>0.04</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn id="tab6-fn1"><label><sup>a&#x02013;c</sup></label><p>Means within a row without common superscript differ (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05).</p></fn><fn id="tab6-fn2"><label><sup>1</sup></label><p>Scale Overall Acceptability, 10&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;like extremely, respectively; 1&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;dislike extremely, respectively.</p></fn><fn id="tab6-fn3"><label><sup>2</sup></label><p>Scale Flavor, 10&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;like flavor extremely, respectively; 1&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;dislike flavor extremely, respectively.</p></fn><fn id="tab6-fn4"><label><sup>3</sup></label><p>Scale Juiciness, 10&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;extremely juicy, respectively; 1&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;extremely dry, respectively.</p></fn><fn id="tab6-fn5"><label><sup>4</sup></label><p>Scale Tenderness, 10&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;extremely tender, respectively; 1&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;extremely tough, respectively.</p></fn><fn id="tab6-fn6"><label><sup>5</sup></label><p>Scale Coating, 10&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;like coating extremely, respectively; 1&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;dislike coating extremely, respectively.</p></fn><fn id="tab6-fn7"><label><sup>6</sup></label><p>Scale Appearance, 10&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;like color extremely, respectively; 1&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;dislike color extremely, respectively.</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><p>Previous research has demonstrated fairly comprehensive rankings of beef muscles demonstrating the relative overall superiority in palatability of the <italic>Longissimus lumborum</italic> (strip loin) over the clod heart, top round, and top sirloin muscle cuts (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r20">McKeith et&#x000A0;al., 1985</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r11">Carmack et&#x000A0;al., 1995</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r27">Rhee et&#x000A0;al., 2004</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r15">Hunt et&#x000A0;al., 2014</xref>). In the categories of tenderness and acceptability, the clod heart and top sirloin were second highest compared to the strip loin. Clod heart, top sirloin and strip loin consumer assessment results showed a superior flavor to that of top round. Flavor is often affected by the amount of intramuscular fat, or marbling, within a cut. Intramuscular fat has a significant impact on marketing and palatability of fresh meat, particularly beef (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r12">Corbin et&#x000A0;al., 2015</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r18">Lonergan et&#x000A0;al., 2019</xref>). The top round treatment resulted in less acceptable flavor than the other cuts of meat. The investigators hypothesize that the top round flavor rating was due to the fact that the SM muscle, the primary muscle in the top round, is characterized as fast-twitch glycolytic muscle, with relatively low marbling and high collagen content (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r16">Jurie et&#x000A0;al., 2007</xref>). Moreover, Voges et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r33">2007</xref>) rated different retail cuts for palatability attributes and reported that the top round was liked less with respect to overall liking and tenderness than other meat contents, which is similar to the results from the previous study. The mechanical tenderness evaluation (WBSF) of the treatments complements the consumer tenderness assessment.</p><p>Coating and appearance differed between treatments. The strip loin treatment had the preferred coating over all other treatments (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05). Similarly, the mean appearance values of the strip loin treatment were greater than that of the clod heart and top sirloin (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05). The top round was observed to have no difference in mean appearance acceptance values from any of the other treatments (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003E;&#x02009;0.05). Color and appearance parameters play an important role in the evaluation of fried foods (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r10">Cao et&#x000A0;al., 2020</xref>). Color of fried foods will directly affect consumer acceptance (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r10">Cao et&#x000A0;al., 2020</xref>). The color of the food surface is the first quality parameter evaluated by consumers and is critical in the acceptance of the product (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r26">Pedreschi et&#x000A0;al., 2005</xref>). A study performed by Pedreschi et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r26">2005</xref>) evaluated potato chips according to their sensory quality as determined by color and saw that consumers prefer a golden-brown color, not a burnt color. Controlling frying temperature, time and heat led to a golden-brown surface color preferred by consumers. Barbut (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r6">2012</xref>) found the same effect in coated chicken breast fillets. The strip loin in the current study had the greatest mean color and coating acceptability even though all products were the same size and prepared in the same manner. Overall beef eating quality is predominantly dependent upon all 3 factors: tenderness, juiciness, and flavor, as well as the interaction among these traits (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r25">O&#x02019;Quinn et&#x000A0;al., 2018</xref>). However, a steak may be deemed acceptable by consumers due primarily to the outstanding level of a single trait despite the lower or even unacceptable levels of one or both of the other traits (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r25">O&#x02019;Quinn et&#x000A0;al., 2018</xref>). It is possible that this trait compensation theory was also applied by consumers to color scores; however, more research would be needed to come to this conclusion.</p><p>There was a significant response in consumers&#x02019; willingness to purchase (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.01). Affirmative purchases for the muscles in a battered application were reported in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="f1">Figure&#x000A0;1</xref>. The strip loin treatment was the most likely to be purchased based on consumer responses (83% Yes response, <italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05). All other treatments were not significantly different in consumer affirmative purchase responses.</p><fig id="f1"><label>Figure 1.</label><caption><p>Affirmative purchase response by cut in a battered beef finger steak application. Treatments with different adjacent superscripts (<sup>a, b</sup>) differ (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05).</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="1.png"/></fig><p>The researchers wanted to also consider the fact that the science of assessing one&#x02019;s texture preferences are becoming more of a consideration among the meat science community (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r23">Miller et&#x000A0;al., 2022</xref>). These considerations may need to be more of a factor in research assessing overall consumer acceptance of battered meat products in the future.</p></sec><sec id="sec3.4"><title>Trained sensory analysis</title><p>Trained taste panelists (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;7) were recruited in the state of Idaho. Trained sensory panel scores are reported in <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab7">Table&#x000A0;7</xref>. Panelists evaluated samples for color appearance, batter adhesion, crispiness, juiciness, tenderness, and flavor intensity. Acceptance of fried food is directly affected by the color appearance and often determines their selection or rejection of fried food as demonstrated by studies performed on potato chips (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r28">Segnini et&#x000A0;al., 1999</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r21">Mendoza et&#x000A0;al., 2007</xref>). Consumers tend to associate visual appearance with the taste and crispiness preferences, enjoyment level, safety, health, and storage conditions among other physicochemical properties (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r28">Segnini et&#x000A0;al., 1999</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r21">Mendoza et&#x000A0;al., 2007</xref>). Another essential feature of fried food is ensuring that the adhesion of the batter to the product throughout the cooking process. Lack of adhesion can negatively impact product perception. In addition, although it may be a difficult sensory impression to quantify, crispiness is certainly one, if not the most, critical coating characteristic (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r17">Loewe, 2011</xref>). For the present study, no differences were observed among the trained sensory panelists for coating appearance (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;0.46), batter adhesion (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;0.34), or crispiness (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;0.23). These findings demonstrate that the products tested were prepared in a consistent and controlled manner and that differences observed by the trained panelists were the result of the beef cuts assessed.</p><table-wrap id="tab7"><label>Table 7.</label><caption><p>Mean trained sensory panel scores for overall acceptability, flavor, juiciness, tenderness, coating, and appearance for strip loin (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;12), clod heart (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;12), top round (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;12), and top sirloin (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;12) of beef finger steaks</p></caption><table><colgroup><col align="left"/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/></colgroup><thead><tr><th/><th>Strip loin</th><th>Clod heart</th><th>Top round</th><th>Top sirloin</th><th>SEM</th><th><italic>P</italic> value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><bold>Appearance</bold><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab7-fn2"><sup>1</sup></xref></td><td>6.57</td><td>6.11</td><td>6.37</td><td>6.46</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.46</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Batter adhesion</bold><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab7-fn3"><sup>2</sup></xref></td><td>5.11</td><td>4.5</td><td>4.41</td><td>5.18</td><td>0.38</td><td>0.34</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Crispiness</bold><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab7-fn4"><sup>3</sup></xref></td><td>4.68</td><td>3.96</td><td>3.70</td><td>4.57</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.23</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Juiciness</bold><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab7-fn5"><sup>4</sup></xref></td><td>4.75<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab7-fn1"><sup>ab</sup></xref></td><td>5.57<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab7-fn1"><sup>a</sup></xref></td><td>4.19<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab7-fn1"><sup>b</sup></xref></td><td>4.36<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab7-fn1"><sup>b</sup></xref></td><td>0.32</td><td>0.02</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Tenderness</bold><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab7-fn6"><sup>5</sup></xref></td><td>6.71<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab7-fn1"><sup>a</sup></xref></td><td>5.82<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab7-fn1"><sup>a</sup></xref></td><td>4.22<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab7-fn1"><sup>b</sup></xref></td><td>5.71<xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab7-fn1"><sup>a</sup></xref></td><td>0.40</td><td>0.01</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Beef flavor intensity</bold><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab7-fn7"><sup>6</sup></xref></td><td>5.93</td><td>6.0</td><td>5.04</td><td>5.96</td><td>0.32</td><td>0.12</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Overall flavor intensity</bold><xref ref-type="table-fn" rid="tab7-fn8"><sup>7</sup></xref></td><td>2.21</td><td>2.07</td><td>1.96</td><td>2.25</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.53</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn id="tab7-fn1"><label><sup>a,b</sup></label><p>Means within sensory trait without common superscript differ (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05).</p></fn><fn id="tab7-fn2"><label><sup>1</sup></label><p>Scale Appearance, 10&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;extremely good appearance; 1&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;extremely poor appearance.</p></fn><fn id="tab7-fn3"><label><sup>2</sup></label><p>Scale Batter adhesion, 10&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;overly bound; 1&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;no binding.</p></fn><fn id="tab7-fn4"><label><sup>3</sup></label><p>Scale Crispiness, 10&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;extremely crispy; 1&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;extremely dry.</p></fn><fn id="tab7-fn5"><label><sup>4</sup></label><p>Scale Juiciness, extremely juicy; 1&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;extremely dry.</p></fn><fn id="tab7-fn6"><label><sup>5</sup></label><p>Scale Tenderness, 10&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;extremely tender; 1&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;extremely tough.</p></fn><fn id="tab7-fn7"><label><sup>6</sup></label><p>Scale Beef flavor intensity, 10&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;intense beef flavor; 1&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;no beef flavor.</p></fn><fn id="tab7-fn8"><label><sup>7</sup></label><p>Scale Overall flavor intensity, 10&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;intense overall flavor; 1&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;lacking overall flavor intensity.</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><p>The traits of tenderness, juiciness, and flavor have long been considered the most important palatability traits affecting beef eating quality (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r25">O&#x02019;Quinn et&#x000A0;al., 2018</xref>). A muscle profiling study performed by Sullivan and Calkins (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r9">2011</xref>) found the TB muscle to possess palatability attributes suitable for retail steak fabrication. The results of the current study support that the clod heart was comparable in juiciness to the strip loin (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003E;&#x02009;0.05) and superior to top round and top sirloin. The strip loin, clod heart, and top sirloin were more tender than the top round (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05). Nyquist et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r24">2018</xref>) evaluated the palatability of beef chuck, loin, and round muscles and found through trained sensory panels that round muscles were less juicy and tender and had less flavor intensity in comparison to the <italic>longissimus lumborum</italic> and chuck muscles. Previously, it was stated that muscles from the round are less desirable due to lower tenderness influenced by fiber type and an increased level of connective tissue (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r3">Anderson et&#x000A0;al., 2012</xref>). Carmack et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r11">1995</xref>) ranked 12 muscles for flavor intensity, and with the exception of the TB (clod heart), the hindquarter muscles of the carcass, excluding the SM, exhibited the most-intense beef flavor. By contrast the current study results showed no significant difference for beef flavor intensity (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;0.12) and overall flavor intensity (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003D;&#x02009;0.53). Voges et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r33">2007</xref>) advised that, because of their WBSF values and consumer ratings, round retail cuts still require more attention to ensure acceptable tenderness. The WBSF results of the current study are concomitant with results of the trained sensory panel tenderness assessment.</p></sec></sec><sec id="sec4"><title>Conclusions</title><p>Although significant differences between muscle cuts were observed throughout the study, sufficient data demonstrated that the beef cuts assessed remain suitable as raw product options for finger steak application, albeit the strip loin did still consistently perform to a higher degree than the others. The clod heart and top sirloin consistently demonstrated similar palatability characteristics to that of the strip loin. Increasing consumer acceptance and the consistency of finger steaks could permit greater marketing, product development, and value discovery opportunities. The present study supports the idea that several cut options exist as acceptable alternatives to beef finger steaks while allowing for potential price discovery due to commonly observed differences in cost of the different cuts evaluated. Moreover, the cuts used in the current study suggest potential for use in other battered and breaded applications.</p></sec></body><back><ack><title>Acknowledgments</title><p>This research was funded by The Beef Checkoff and the Idaho Beef Council. The authors thank AB Foods Washington Beef and University of Idaho Vandal Brand Meats for supplies and facility use. The authors disclose that there are no conflicts of interest that may inhibit the reputable publication of this manuscript.</p></ack><ref-list><title>Literature Cited</title><ref id="r1"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Adhikari</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>E.</given-names> <surname>Chambers</surname> <suffix>IV</suffix></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R.</given-names> <surname>Miller</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>L.</given-names> <surname>V&#x000E1;zquez-Ara&#x000FA;jo</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>N.</given-names> <surname>Bhumiratana</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>C.</given-names> <surname>Philip</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2011</year>. <article-title>Development of a lexicon for beef flavor in intact muscle</article-title>. <source>J. Sens. Stud</source>. <volume>26</volume>:<fpage>413</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>420</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2011.00356.x</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r2"><mixed-citation publication-type="book"><collab>AMSA (American Meat Science Association)</collab>. <year>2016</year>. <chapter-title>Research guidelines for cookery, sensory evaluation and instrumental tenderness measurements of meat</chapter-title>. Version 1.0. <publisher-name>Am. Meat Sci. Assoc</publisher-name>. <publisher-loc>Champaign, IL</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r3"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Anderson</surname>, <given-names>M. J.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>S. M.</given-names> <surname>Lonergan</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>C. A.</given-names> <surname>Fedler</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>K. J.</given-names> <surname>Prusa</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. M.</given-names> <surname>Binning</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>E.</given-names> <surname>Huff-Lonergan</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2012</year>. <article-title>Profile of biochemical traits influencing tenderness of muscles from the beef round</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>91</volume>:<fpage>247</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>254</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.01.022</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r4"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><collab>ASTM</collab>. <year>2008</year>. <article-title>Standard guide for sensory claim substantiation. Designation E-1958-07</article-title>. <source>Annual Book of ASTM Standards</source> <volume>15</volume>:<fpage>186</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>212</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r5"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><collab>ASTM</collab>. <year>2011</year>. <article-title>Standard specification for tenderness marketing claims associated with meat cuts derived from beef</article-title>. Designation F2925. <volume>11</volume>:<fpage>1</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>3</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r6"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Barbut</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> <year>2012</year>. <article-title>Convenience breaded poultry meat products&#x02014;New developments</article-title>. <source>Trends Food Sci. Tech</source>. <volume>26</volume>:<fpage>14</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>20</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2011.12.007</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r7"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Barbut</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> <year>2013</year>. <article-title>Frying&#x02014;Effect of coating on crust microstructure, color, and texture of lean meat portions</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>93</volume>:<fpage>269</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>274</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.09.006</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r8"><mixed-citation publication-type="other"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Barbut</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> <year>2015</year>. <source>The science of poultry and meat processing [free online textbook]</source>. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="www.poultryandmeatprocessing.com/">www.poultryandmeatprocessing.com/</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r10"><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>G.</given-names> <surname>Wu</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>F.</given-names> <surname>Zhang</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>L.</given-names> <surname>Xu</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>Q.</given-names> <surname>Jin</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J.</given-names> <surname>Huang</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>X.</given-names> <surname>Wang</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2020</year>. <article-title>A comparative study of physicochemical and flavor characteristics of chicken nuggets during air frying and deep frying</article-title>. <source>J. Am. Oil Chem. Soc</source>. <volume>97</volume>:<fpage>901</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>913</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1002/aocs.12376</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r11"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Carmack</surname>, <given-names>C. F.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>C. L.</given-names> <surname>Kastner</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. E.</given-names> <surname>Dikeman</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. R.</given-names> <surname>Schwenke</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R.</given-names> <surname>Garcia</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>C. M.</given-names> <surname>Zepeda</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>1995</year>. <article-title>Sensory evaluation of beef-flavor-intensity, tenderness, and juiciness among major muscles</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>39</volume>:<fpage>143</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>147</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-1740(95)80016-6</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r12"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Corbin</surname>, <given-names>C. H.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>T. G.</given-names> <surname>O&#x02019;Quinn</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>A. J.</given-names> <surname>Garmyn</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. F.</given-names> <surname>Legako</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. R.</given-names> <surname>Hunt</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>T. T. N.</given-names> <surname>Dinh</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R. J.</given-names> <surname>Rathmann</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>2015</year>. <article-title>Sensory evaluation of tender beef strip loin steaks of varying marbling levels and quality treatments</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>100</volume>:<fpage>24</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>31</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.09.009</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r13"><mixed-citation publication-type="web"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Guilhem</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name></person-group> <year>2017</year>. <article-title>What&#x02019;s a finger steak? Three Idaho transplants take a tasting tour. Boise State Public Radio</article-title>. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/post/what-s-finger-steak-three-idaho-transplants-take-tasting-tour#stream/0">https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/post/what-s-finger-steak-three-idaho-transplants-take-tasting-tour#stream/0</ext-link> (Accessed 25 January 2024).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r14"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Huffman</surname>, <given-names>K. L.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. F.</given-names> <surname>Miller</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>L. C.</given-names> <surname>Hoover</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>C. K.</given-names> <surname>Wu</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>H. C.</given-names> <surname>Brittin</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>C. B.</given-names> <surname>Ramsey</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>1996</year>. <article-title>Effect of beef tenderness on consumer satisfaction with steaks consumed in the home and restaurant</article-title>. <source>J. Anim. Sci</source>. <volume>74</volume>:<fpage>91</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>97</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.2527/1996.74191x</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r15"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hunt</surname>, <given-names>M. R.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>A. J.</given-names> <surname>Garmyn</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>T. G.</given-names> <surname>O&#x02019;Quinn</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>C. H.</given-names> <surname>Corbin</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. F.</given-names> <surname>Legako</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R. J.</given-names> <surname>Rathmann</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>2014</year>. <article-title>Consumer assessment of beef palatability from four beef muscles from USDA Choice and Select graded carcasses</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>98</volume>:<fpage>1</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>8</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.04.004</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r16"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Jurie</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>I.</given-names> <surname>Cassar-Malek</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M.</given-names> <surname>Bonnet</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>C.</given-names> <surname>Leroux</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D.</given-names> <surname>Bauchart</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>P.</given-names> <surname>Boulesteix</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D. W.</given-names> <surname>Pethick</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>J. F.</given-names> <surname>Hocquette</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2007</year>. <article-title>Adipocyte fatty acid- binding protein and mitochondrial enzyme activities in muscles as relevant indicators of marbling in cattle</article-title>. <source>J. Anim. Sci</source>. <volume>85</volume>:<fpage>2660</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>2669</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2006-837</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r17"><mixed-citation publication-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Loewe</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> <year>2011</year>. <chapter-title>Ingredient selection for batter and breading systems</chapter-title>. In: <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><given-names>K.</given-names> <surname>Kulp</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R.</given-names> <surname>Loewe</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>K.</given-names> <surname>Lorenz</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>J.</given-names> <surname>Gelroth</surname></string-name></person-group>, editors, <source>Batters and breadings in food processing</source>. <publisher-name>AACC Internatinoal</publisher-name>. p.&#x000A0;<fpage>9</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>24</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r18"><mixed-citation publication-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lonergan</surname>, <given-names>S. M.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D. G.</given-names> <surname>Topel</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>D. N.</given-names> <surname>Marple</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2019</year>. <chapter-title>Chapter 5&#x02014;Fat and fat cells in domestic animals</chapter-title>. <source>The Science of Animal Growth and Meat Technology (Second Edition)</source>. p.&#x000A0;<fpage>51</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>69</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-815277-5.00005-6</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r19"><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="r20"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>McKeith</surname>, <given-names>F. K.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D. L.</given-names> <surname>DeVol</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R. S.</given-names> <surname>Miles</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>P. J.</given-names> <surname>Bechtel</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>T. R.</given-names> <surname>Carr</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>1985</year>. <article-title>Chemical and sensory properties of thirteen major beef muscles</article-title>. <source>J. Food Sci</source>. <volume>50</volume>:<fpage>869</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>872</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1985.tb12968.x</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r21"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Mendoza</surname>, <given-names>F.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>P.</given-names> <surname>Dejmek</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. M</given-names> <surname>Aguilera</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2007</year>. <article-title>Color and image texture analysis in classification of commercial potato chips</article-title>. <source>Food Res. Int</source>. <volume>40</volume>;<fpage>1146</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>1154</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2007.06.014</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r22"><mixed-citation publication-type="book"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Meilgaard</surname>, <given-names>M. C.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>G. V.</given-names> <surname>Civille</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>B. T.</given-names> <surname>Carr</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2006</year>. <source>Sensory evaluation techniques</source>. <edition>4<sup>th</sup> ed.</edition> <publisher-name>CRC Press</publisher-name>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r23"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Miller</surname>, <given-names>R. K.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>C. A.</given-names> <surname>Pena</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. F.</given-names> <surname>Legako</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D.</given-names> <surname>Woerner</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>C.</given-names> <surname>Brooks</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>B.</given-names> <surname>Schilling</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. N.</given-names> <surname>Nair</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>T.</given-names> <surname>Cramer</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>P.</given-names> <surname>Smith</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>K. R.</given-names> <surname>Wall</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>C. R.</given-names> <surname>Kerth</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2022</year>. <article-title>2018 National beef flavor audit: Consumer and descriptive sensory attributes</article-title>. <source>Meat Muscle Biol</source>. <volume>6</volume>:<issue>13017</issue>, <fpage>1</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>20</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb.13017</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r24"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Nyquist</surname>, <given-names>K. M.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>T. G.</given-names> <surname>O&#x02019;Quinn</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>L. N.</given-names> <surname>Drey</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>L. W.</given-names> <surname>Lucherk</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. C.</given-names> <surname>Brooks</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. F.</given-names> <surname>Miller</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>J. F.</given-names> <surname>Legako</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2018</year>. <article-title>Palatability of beef chuck, loin, and round muscles from three USDA quality grades</article-title>. <source>J Anim Sci</source>. <volume>96</volume>:<fpage>4276</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>4292</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky305</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r25"><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="r26"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Pedreschi</surname>, <given-names>F.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>P.</given-names> <surname>Moyano</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>K.</given-names> <surname>Kaack</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>K.</given-names> <surname>Granby</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2005</year>. <article-title>Color changes and acrylamide formation in fried potato slices</article-title>. <source>Food Res. Int</source>. <volume>38</volume>:<fpage>1</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>9</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2004.07.002</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r27"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Rhee</surname>, <given-names>M. S.</given-names></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>, and <string-name><given-names>M.</given-names> <surname>Koohmaraie</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2004</year>. <article-title>Variation in palatability and biochemical traits within and among eleven beef muscles</article-title>. <source>J. Anim. Sci</source>. <volume>82</volume>:<fpage>534</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>550</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.2527/2004.822534x</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r28"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Segnini</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>P.</given-names> <surname>Dejmek</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>R.</given-names> <surname>Oste</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>1999</year>. <article-title>A low cost video technique for colour measurement of potato chips</article-title>. <source>Lebensm.-Wiss. Technol</source>. <volume>32</volume>:<fpage>216</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>222</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1006/fstl.1999.0536</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r29"><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>M.</given-names> <surname>Koohmaraie</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>G.</given-names> <surname>Whipple</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>T. L.</given-names> <surname>Wheeler</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. F.</given-names> <surname>Miller</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J.D</given-names> <surname>Crouse</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>J. O.</given-names> <surname>Reagan</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>1991</year>. <article-title>Identification of threshold levels for Warner&#x02013;Bratzler shear force in beef top loin steaks</article-title>. <source>J. Food Sci</source>. <volume>56</volume>:<fpage>1130</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>1135</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1991.tb04718.x</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r9"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Sullivan</surname>, <given-names>G. A.</given-names></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>C. R.</given-names> <surname>Calkins</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2011</year>. <article-title>Ranking beef muscles for Warner-Bratzler shear force and trained sensory panel ratings from published literature</article-title>. <source>J. Food Quality</source> <volume>34</volume>:<fpage>195</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>203</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-4557.2011.00386.x</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r30"><mixed-citation publication-type="web"><collab>USDA-AMS (US Department of Agriculture Agricultural Marketing Service)</collab>. <year>2014</year>. <article-title>Certification of breading percentage</article-title>. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/QAD%20605%20-%20Certification%20of%20Breading%20Percentage.pdf">https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/QAD%20605%20-%20Certification%20of%20Breading%20Percentage.pdf</ext-link>. (Accessed 25 January 2024).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r31"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><collab>USDA-ERS (US Department of Agriculture Economic Research Service)</collab>. <year>2024</year>. <article-title>Wholesale prices: USDA Choice 1&#x02013;3, 600&#x02013;900 lbs., boxed beef cutout, 2000&#x02013;2024</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 17 April 2024).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r32"><mixed-citation publication-type="web"><collab>USDA-NASS (US Department of Agriculture National Agricultural Statistics Service)</collab>. <year>2023</year>. <article-title>March crop production</article-title>. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/Executive_Briefings/2023/03-08-2023.pdf">https://www.nass.usda.gov/Newsroom/Executive_Briefings/2023/03-08-2023.pdf</ext-link>. (Accessed 25 January 2024).</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r33"><mixed-citation publication-type="other"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Voges</surname>, <given-names>K. L.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>G. L.</given-names> <surname>Mason</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. C.</given-names> <surname>Brooks</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R. J.</given-names> <surname>Delmore</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>W. R.</given-names> <surname>Henning</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>J. B.</given-names> <surname>Morgan</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>B. E.</given-names> <surname>Baird</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>B. L.</given-names> <surname>Gwartney</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>J. W.</given-names> <surname>Savell</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2007</year>. <article-title>National beef tenderness survey&#x02014;2006: Assessment of Warner-Bratzler shear and sensory panel ratings for beef from US retail and foodservice establishments</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>77</volume>:<fpage>357</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>364</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2007.03.024</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r34"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Von Seggern</surname>, <given-names>D. D.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>C. R.</given-names> <surname>Calkins</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D. D.</given-names> <surname>Johnson</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. E.</given-names> <surname>Brickler</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>B. L.</given-names> <surname>Gwartney</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2005</year>. <article-title>Muscle profiling: Characterizing the muscles of the beef chuck and round</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>71</volume>:<fpage>39</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>51</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2005.04.010</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article>