<?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"><!--Arbortext, Inc., 1988-2011, v.4002--><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.19030</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>Impact of Product Size and Subsequent Consumer Freezing Practices on Meat Quality and Palatability of Different Beef Muscles</article-title><alt-title alt-title-type="right-running">Dahunsi et al.&#x02003;&#x02003;&#x02003;&#x02003;&#x02003;&#x02003;&#x02003;Size and double-freezing impact on beef</alt-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Dahunsi</surname><given-names>Paul Olaoluwaniyi</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Pitti</surname><given-names>Ashley Rivera</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Sebastian Hernandez</surname><given-names>M.</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Dobbins</surname><given-names>Thomas W.</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Denzer</surname><given-names>Morgan</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff3"><sup>3</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Dias-Morse</surname><given-names>Palika</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>4</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Vierck</surname><given-names>Kelly R.</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>4</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Legako</surname><given-names>Jerrad F.</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><name><surname>Setyabrata</surname><given-names>Derico</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff4"><sup>4</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><aff id="aff1"><label><sup>1</sup></label>Department of Animal Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR 72701 USA</aff><aff id="aff2"><label><sup>2</sup></label>Department of Animal and Food Sciences, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX 79409 USA</aff><aff id="aff3"><label><sup>3</sup></label>Department of Food Science, <institution>University of Arkansas</institution>, Fayetteville, AR 72704 <country>USA</country></aff><aff id="aff4"><label><sup>4</sup></label>Department of Animal Science, Division of Agriculture, <institution>University of Arkansas System</institution>, Fayetteville, AR 72701 <country>USA</country></aff></contrib-group><author-notes><corresp id="cor1"><label><sup>*</sup></label>Corresponding author. Email: <email>dericos@uark.edu</email> (Derico Setyabrata)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date date-type="epub" publication-format="electronic"><day>00</day><month>00</month><year>0000</year></pub-date><volume>9</volume><issue>1</issue><fpage>1</fpage><lpage>18</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>04</day><month>02</month><year>2025</year></date><date date-type="accepted"><day>08</day><month>05</month><year>2025</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#x000A9; 2025 Dahunsi, Pitti, Sebastian Hernandez, Dobbins, Denzer, Dias-Morse, Vierck, Legako, Setyabrata.</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2025</copyright-year><copyright-holder>&#x000A9; 2025 Dahunsi, Pitti, Sebastian Hernandez, Dobbins, Denzer, Dias-Morse, Vierck, Legako, Setyabrata.</copyright-holder><license license-type="open-access"><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>The objective of this study was to assess the impacts of product sizes and subsequent consumer freezing practices on beef quality and palatability. Paired beef strip loins (LL), top sirloins (GM), and eye of rounds (ST) from 15 United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) Low Choice beef carcasses were collected, and each side was assigned into 2 freezing sizes, section (SEC) or steak (STK). Each muscle was also cut into 3 equal portions and randomly assigned to one of the 3 freezer types: blast freezer (BLS), chest freezer (CST), or refrigerator freezer (FRI). Portions assigned to STK were further cut into steaks (2.54&#x000A0;cm). Samples were vacuum sealed and frozen for the first 35-d freezing cycle in a &#x02212;20&#x000B0;C BLS, then thawed until the internal temperature reached 2&#x000B0;C. After thawing, samples were subjected to a second 35-d freezing cycle based on the assigned freezer types and thawed using the previous method. Samples were then subjected to quality and palatability analyses, with SEC samples fabricated into 2.54-cm steaks before analysis. Product size affected the pH of all muscles, showing SEC had a lower pH than STK (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05) in LL and GM, while the inverse was observed in ST. The ST muscle pH was influenced by the freezer, with FRI having the highest pH (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05). No clear pattern was observed in water-holding capacity, although SEC freezing generally had greater purge loss compared with STK. Regardless of muscles, SEC freezing significantly improved color quality and stability compared with STK samples, showing greater redness and lower discoloration (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05). The consumer sensory panel found minimal differences in palatability quality and acceptability in LL and ST treatments (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003E;&#x02009;0.05), whereas SEC-FRI rated lower in tenderness and overall acceptability in GM (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05). The current results suggest that product size has a greater impact on determining final frozen meat quality compared with freezer types.</p></abstract><kwd-group><title>Key words:</title><kwd>beef</kwd><kwd>consumer freezing</kwd><kwd>double freezing</kwd><kwd>oxidative stability</kwd><kwd>palatability</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="sec1"><title>Introduction</title><p>Among all preservation methods, freezing remains the most widely practiced and effective method to increase the shelf life of meat products (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r21">Leygonie et&#x000A0;al., 2012</xref>). The meat industry has commonly utilized the freezing process to overcome the seasonality of consumer demand issues and fulfill the increasing demand for international commercialization (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r26">Muela et&#x000A0;al., 2015</xref>). However, quality deterioration is often observed following freezing, mainly attributed to ice crystal development, which induces physical disruption within the muscle structures. Quality defects such as increased purge/thaw loss, rapid discoloration, reduced oxidative stability, and off-flavor development are commonly observed in frozen/thawed meat products (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r21">Leygonie et&#x000A0;al., 2012</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r16">Y. H. B. Kim et&#x000A0;al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r37">Setyabrata et&#x000A0;al., 2019</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r36">Setyabrata and Kim, 2019</xref>). As a result, frozen meats are often considered inferior products and not preferred by consumers (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r18">Lambooij et&#x000A0;al., 2019</xref>).</p><p>The extent of freezing damage on meat is influenced by the freezing conditions, mainly resulting from inconsistent freezing rates. Particularly, different muscle sizes (i.e.,&#x000A0;subprimal freezing versus precut steak freezing) could lead to a different freezing rate during the process. The freezing rate will affect the shape, location, size, and amount of ice crystals formed, thus impacting the final quality of frozen beef (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r21">Leygonie et&#x000A0;al., 2012</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r15">Kim et&#x000A0;al., 2015</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r37">Setyabrata et&#x000A0;al., 2019</xref>). The rate of heat removal from meat during the critical freezing transition phase (between &#x02212;1&#x000B0;C and &#x02212;7&#x000B0;C) is known to dictate the morphology and distribution of ice crystals in meat products (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r12">Kiani and Sun, 2011</xref>). Setyabrata et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r37">2019</xref>) reported that rapid freezing of meat reduced cryo-damage impacts within muscle structures. The reduction in cryo-damage was believed to result from the formation of smaller and uniformly distributed ice crystals within the intracellular matrices of muscle structures.</p><p>In addition to the initial freezing impact, a repeated freeze-thaw cycle has also been identified to exacerbate and accelerate the deterioration of frozen/thawed meat quality (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r29">Qi et&#x000A0;al., 2012</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r39">Tuell et&#x000A0;al., 2020</xref>). Multiple freeze-thaw cycles are prevalent during distribution, retail storage, and even within consumer households (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r1">Ali et&#x000A0;al., 2015</xref>). With recent consumer behavior shifts due to supply chain issues and growing economic inflation, more consumers are now resorting to bulk purchasing for at-home frozen storage and future use (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r34">Roerink, 2021</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r35">Roerink, 2023</xref>). The effect of a repeated freeze-thaw cycle on meat quality has often been reported following common industrial practices and technologies (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r31">Rahman et&#x000A0;al., 2015</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r3">Chen et&#x000A0;al., 2018</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r41">Wang et&#x000A0;al., 2021</xref>). However, information on the impact of subsequent freezing using consumer freezer types (e.g.,&#x000A0;CST and FRI) on the final meat quality is still limited and not widely available. Most freezing technology available to consumers has limited capability to rapidly remove heat, thus creating greater potential for increased product damage and consumer dissatisfaction. Taken together, the objective of this study was to identify the impact of product size and subsequent freezer types on the final meat quality and palatability of different beef muscles.</p></sec><sec id="sec2"><title>Material and Methods</title><sec id="sec2.1"><title>Raw material and sample processing</title><p>Paired strip loins (<italic>M. longissimus lumborum</italic>, Institutional Meat Purchase Specifications [IMPS] #180), top sirloin butts (<italic>M. gluteus medius</italic>, IMPS #184B), and eye of round (<italic>M. semitendinosus</italic>, IMPS #171C) were collected from 15 (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;15) A-Maturity beef carcasses with no defects (USDA Low Choice, Small<sup>00&#x02013;100</sup> marbling scores) from a commercial facility at 3 d postmortem, vacuum sealed and transported to the Red Meat Laboratory of the University of Arkansas for processing.</p><p>Upon arrival, the muscle pairs from each carcass were aged at 2&#x000B0;C until 28 d postmortem before fabrication. <xref ref-type="fig" rid="f1">Figure&#x000A0;1</xref> shows a schematic of the sample allocation and processing used in the current study. Each side of the paired muscles was assigned to either steak freezing (STK) or section freezing (SEC). Each muscle was then equally portioned into 3 sections and was randomly assigned to 3 different subsequent secondary consumer freezing methods: 1) blast freezer (BLS) (Master-Bilt, New Albany, MS, USA; &#x02212;20&#x000B0;C), 2) chest freezer (CST) (Whirlpool Corporation, Benton Harbor, MI, USA; &#x02212;20&#x000B0;C), and 3) regular refrigerator freezer (FRI) (Midea Group, China; &#x02212;18&#x000B0;C). For muscles assigned to the STK freezing methods, each section was cut into at least 5 steaks (2.54&#x000A0;cm), whereas muscles assigned to SEC remained as sections. All samples were then weighed and individually vacuum packaged. The samples were randomly distributed based on their freezing size assignment (SEC versus STK) to closed cardboard boxes following typical industry practice. Each box contained an equal number of samples and similar weights (&#x0223C;19&#x000A0;kg/box). The temperature changes during freezing and thawing were monitored using Thermo Button data loggers (Model 21G, ProgesPlus - PlugAndTrack, France) and a T-type thermocouple (Omega Engineering, Stamford, CT, USA) connected to an OctTemp 2000 data logger (Madge Tech, Inc., Warner, NH, USA), which was embedded in additional samples specifically designated for temperature monitoring.</p><fig id="f1"><label>Figure 1.</label><caption><p>A schematic representation of sample preparation and the sequence of treatments.</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="1.png"/></fig><p>All samples were subject to the first freezing cycle in a &#x02212;20&#x000B0;C BLS and stored for 35 d. At the end of the first freezing storage period, samples were thawed at 3&#x000B0;C until an internal temperature of 2&#x000B0;C was reached (approximately 5 d for STK and 7 d for SEC). Following the completion of the thawing process, samples were separated and subjected to a second freezing cycle based on the previously assigned freezer types. The samples assigned to BLS freezing were frozen in closed boxes as previously mentioned. CST and FRI samples were frozen in the freezers without any boxes to simulate consumer freezing practices. Samples were then stored frozen in the assigned freezers for 35 d and rethawed using the previous method after storage duration. After the second thawing process, all samples were blotted dry and reweighed for purge loss, and SEC samples were cut into at least 5 steaks (2.54&#x000A0;cm). The samples were then collected for water-holding capacity (WHC), color stability, instrumental tenderness, consumer sensory evaluation, and biochemical analyses. Samples not immediately used for analyses were individually vacuum-packed and stored in a &#x02212;80&#x000B0;C freezer until further analysis.</p></sec><sec id="sec2.2"><title>pH measurement</title><p>The pH of each sample was measured using an insert-type meat pH probe (Testo 205, Testo North America, West Chester, PA, USA) in duplicate before and after all the freezing treatments. The probe was calibrated to pH 4 and 7 standards following the manufacturer&#x02019;s instructions before any measurements.</p></sec><sec id="sec2.3"><title>WHC measurement</title><p>Several assays were conducted to measure the meat WHC at the end of the repeated freeze-thaw cycles. The percentage purge loss from the freeze-thaw process was determined by measuring the weight before and after freezing treatments. Drip loss was determined using the Honikel drip loss method (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r10">Honikel, 1998</xref>) with modification (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r36">Setyabrata and Kim, 2019</xref>) and expressed by calculating the difference in the initial and final mass of the sample in percentage. The cook loss was determined by weighing and cooking the sample with a clamshell griddle (Griddler GR-150, Cuisinart, Glendale, AZ, USA) until the internal steak temperature reached 71&#x000B0;C, and samples were reweighed after cooking. Cooking loss was determined by calculating the difference between the sample weights before and after cooking.</p></sec><sec id="sec2.4"><title>Display color evaluation</title><p>The surface color stability of the steak samples was assessed daily using both instrumental and trained panelists during a simulated color display. Samples were placed on foam trays with soaker pads and overwrapped with oxygen-permeable Polyvinyl chloride (PVC; 15,500&#x02013;16,275&#x000A0;cm<sup>3</sup> O<sup>2</sup>/m<sup>2</sup> /24&#x000A0;h at 23&#x000B0;C, E-Z Wrap Crystal Clear Polyvinyl Chloride Wrapping Film; Koch Supplies; Kansas City, MO, USA). Samples were displayed for 5 d with daily rotations in an open-front display case (5 shelves; each shelf has 2 LED light bars [P105998A, Lux 1628 &#x02013; 2040, 3500&#x000A0;K, 48&#x0201D;, 4.80 Watt., Hillphoenix Inc., Conyers, GA, USA]). The surface color of the muscles was measured daily using a Hunter MiniScan EZ spectrophotometer (Hunter, Reston, VA, USA) set with a 25-mm aperture, illuminant A, and 10&#x000B0; standard observer angle. CIE <italic>L*</italic>, <italic>a*</italic>, and <italic>b*</italic> values were recorded from 3 random locations on the surface of the sampled beef muscles. Obtained CIE <italic>L*a*b*</italic> values were used to calculate the saturation index [(<italic>a*</italic>2&#x02009;+&#x02009;<italic>b*</italic>2)<sup>1/2</sup>] and hue angle [(<italic>b*</italic>/<italic>a*</italic>) tan<sup>&#x02212;1</sup>] (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r17">King et&#x000A0;al., 2023</xref>). Total color change (&#x00394;E) between day 1 and day 5 was also calculated using&#x02009;[(&#x00394;<italic>L*</italic>)<sup>2</sup>&#x02009;+&#x02009;(&#x00394;<italic>a</italic>*)<sup>2</sup>&#x02009;+&#x02009;(&#x00394;<italic>b</italic>*)<sup>2</sup>]<sup>0.5</sup> to observe color differences during the display (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r17">King et&#x000A0;al., 2023</xref>).</p><?Pub Caret 410?><p>The visual color assessment of the beef muscles was carried out by a group of 12 trained color panelists who had previously passed the Farnsworth-Munsell 100 Hue Test. The sensory panelists were trained in alignment with the American Meat Science Association Meat Color Guidelines (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r17">King et&#x000A0;al., 2023</xref>). Lean color was scored on an 8-point scale [1 = extremely dark red, 2&#x02009;=&#x02009;dark red, 3&#x02009;=&#x02009;moderately dark red, 4&#x02009;=&#x02009;slightly dark red, 5&#x02009;=&#x02009;slightly bright red, 6&#x02009;=&#x02009;moderately bright red, 7&#x02009;=&#x02009;bright red, 8&#x02009;=&#x02009;extremely bright red]. Conversely, discoloration was scored on a 7-point scale [1&#x02009;=&#x02009;no discoloration (0%), 2&#x02009;=&#x02009;slight discoloration (1&#x02013;19%), 3&#x02009;=&#x02009;small discoloration (20&#x02013;39%), 4&#x02009;=&#x02009;modest discoloration (40&#x02013;59%), 5&#x02009;=&#x02009;moderate discoloration (60&#x02013;79%), 6&#x02009;=&#x02009;extensive discoloration (80&#x02013;99%), 7&#x02009;=&#x02009;total discoloration (100%)].</p></sec><sec id="sec2.5"><title>Lipid oxidation</title><p>The lipid oxidation was measured using the 2-thiobarbituric acid reactive substances (TBARS) assay, following the method described by Setyabrata and Kim (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r36">2019</xref>) on samples before and after the simulated retail display. The TBARS samples were individually powdered after being snap-frozen in liquid nitrogen. Five grams (5 g) of the samples was homogenized with 15&#x000A0;mL deionized water (DW) and 50&#x000A0;&#x003BC;L of butylated hydroxyanisole (BHA) (10% butylated hydroxyl anisole solution in 90% ethanol) for 15 seconds at 8,000&#x000A0;rpm (T-25 Ultra Turrax, IKA Works Inc., Wilmington, NC, USA). One mL of the homogenate was combined with 2&#x000A0;mL of 20 mM 2-thiobarbituric acid solution in 15% trichloroacetic acid (TBA/TCA; w/v) solution. The mixture was heated in a water bath (80&#x000B0;C) for 15&#x000A0;min and cooled in ice water for 10&#x000A0;min. After cooling, the mixture was centrifuged at 2,000 g for 10&#x000A0;min, and the supernatant was filtered with filter paper (Whatman No. 4, Cytivia, Marlborough, MA, USA). The supernatant was aliquoted into 96-well plates (200&#x000A0;&#x003BC;L), and the absorbance was read at 531 nm using the microplate spectrophotometer against blank (2&#x000A0;mL of DW and 4&#x000A0;mL of TBA/TCA solution). TBARS value was expressed as mg malondialdehyde (MDA) per kilogram of meat by multiplying the absorbance at 531 nm by the MDA molecular extinction coefficient of 5.54.</p></sec><sec id="sec2.6"><title>Warner-Bratzler shear force</title><p>Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF) values were measured on samples assigned for cook loss measurement using the TA-XT Plus Texture Analyzer (Stable Micro System Ltd., Godalming, UK) coupled with a V-shaped blade attachment. The cooked steaks were stored at 2&#x000B0;C overnight before the shear force measurement. A total of 6 cores (1.27-cm diameter each), parallel to the direction of the muscle fibers, were collected per steak using a manual coring device while avoiding any obvious connective tissues and fat. The cores were sheared perpendicular to the muscle fiber orientation. The crosshead speed was set to 3&#x000A0;mm/second, and a 5-kg load cell was utilized during the measurement. The average peak shear force (N) of the cores from each sample was calculated.</p></sec><sec id="sec2.7"><title>Consumer sensory analysis</title><p>Sensory evaluation of the beef samples by consumers (<italic>N</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;120 panelists) was conducted at Texas Tech University (institutional review board #2017-598) following the method by Hernandez et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r9">2023</xref>). Meat samples were cooked with a clamshell griddle (Griddler GR-150, Cuisinart, Glendale, AZ, USA) until the internal steak temperature reached 71&#x000B0;C. After cooking, the steak samples were cut into 1-cm<sup>3</sup> cubes and placed in an individual sample cup labeled with 3-digit codes in a balanced and randomized design. The samples were then held at 55&#x000B0;C in a food service warmer (Cambro Manufacturing, Huntington Beach, CA, USA) and served within 10&#x000A0;min.</p><p>Consumer panelists were provided with an electronic ballot (Qualtrics, Provo, UT, USA), a plastic fork, a toothpick, a napkin, an expectorant cup, a cup of water, and palate cleansers (unsalted crackers and diluted apple juice) to use between samples. Each ballot contained an information sheet, demographic questionnaire, beef steak purchasing behavior sheet, and sample ballots. The samples were evaluated for flavor, tenderness, juiciness, and overall liking on unstructured 100-point line scales. Scales were verbally anchored at each endpoint and midpoint (0&#x02009;=&#x02009;extremely dislike/extremely tough/extremely dry; 50&#x02009;=&#x02009;neither dislike nor like/neither tough nor tender/neither dry nor juicy; 100&#x02009;=&#x02009;extremely like/extremely tender/extremely juicy). Following scoring, each panelist was asked to rate each sample as either acceptable or unacceptable for each palatability trait.</p></sec><sec id="sec2.8"><title>Design of experiment and statistical analysis</title><p>The study was a complete block design with a split-split plot arrangement for treatment allocation. Each carcass served as a block. Data from each muscle were analyzed separately. The muscle size effect (SEC versus STK) was analyzed as the whole plot, and the freezer type was considered as the subplot. The data were analyzed using PROC GLIMMIX procedure of SAS 9.4 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA) with size, freezer types, and their interaction as fixed effects. The carcass was considered a random effect. Day was added as a fixed variable to analyze the lipid oxidation data. Day was a repeated measure for instrumental and color analysis. The panelist, session, and final peak temperature were added as covariates for consumer sensory evaluation analysis. The significance was considered at <italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05, and a tendency was declared at 0.05&#x02009;&#x02264;&#x02009;<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.10. Significant least square means were separated using the F-test.</p></sec></sec><sec id="sec3"><title>Results and Discussion</title><sec id="sec3.1"><title>Temperature decline</title><p>The impact of different freezing sizes and freezer-type treatments on the temperature decline rate of the different muscles is presented in <xref ref-type="fig" rid="f2">Figure&#x000A0;2</xref>. As expected, STK samples had a faster freezing rate compared with SEC during the first freezing process in a &#x02212;20&#x000B0;C BLS (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="f2">Figure&#x000A0;2A</xref>). Kiani and Sun (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r12">2011</xref>) reported that &#x02212;1&#x000B0;C to &#x02212;7&#x000B0;C is a critical freezing temperature range in meat, dictating the characteristics of ice crystals formed within the product. The present study showed that STK samples took about 20&#x000A0;h to pass through the critical freezing temperature zone. In comparison, the SEC samples took about 30&#x000A0;h, which could have resulted in larger ice crystal formation within the SEC samples compared with STK samples (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r19">Lee et&#x000A0;al., 2022</xref>).</p><fig id="f2"><label>Figure 2.</label><caption><p>The temperature decline rate of <italic>Longissimus lumborum</italic> (LL), <italic>Gluteus medius</italic> (GM), and <italic>Semitendinosus</italic> (ST) during (A)&#x000A0;first freezing at &#x02212;20&#x000B0;C blast freezer with different product size and (B)&#x000A0;second freezing at respective freezer regardless of product size. Freezing size treatments: SEC (section freezing), STK (steak freezing).Freezer treatments: BLS (blast freezer), CST (chest freezer), FRI (refrigerator freezer).</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="2.png"/></fig><p>During the subsequent second freezing using different consumer freezer types, BLS had a faster and more uniform freezing rate, attaining a lower temperature of &#x02212;20&#x000B0;C within 40&#x000A0;h of freezing, compared with other freezer types, regardless of muscles and size of the products (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="f2">Figure&#x000A0;2B</xref>). Generally, the STK samples were found to have a faster freezing rate compared with SEC when considering the impact of size (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="f6">Supplementary Figure&#x000A0;1</xref>). However, the rate of temperature decline was not consistent among the freezer-type treatments. Although further confirmation is still required, it could be speculated that the rate of temperature decline would be impacted by product location within the freezer. Depending on the location in the freezer, airflow surrounding the samples might be limited, which then reduces the rate of heat transfer and explains the differences observed in the current study.</p></sec><sec id="sec3.2"><title>pH and WHC</title><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="tab1">Tables&#x000A0;1</xref>, <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab2">2</xref>, and <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab3">3</xref> show the pH and WHC results for strip loins (LL), top sirloins (GM), and eye of rounds (ST), respectively. The pH of the product was impacted by the different treatments applied. A significant size effect was observed on the pH of the LL and GM muscles, reporting a greater value in STK samples compared with the SEC samples (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05) for both muscles, regardless of the freezer type. The pH of the ST samples was impacted by both size and freezer main effects. Unlike LL and GM, the STK samples from ST had decreased pH compared with ST SEC samples (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05). Additionally, a significant freezer effect was observed in ST samples. The FRI and BLS samples had the greatest and least pH values, respectively (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05), while CST samples were not different from the other treatments in ST samples (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003E;&#x02009;0.05). Although significantly different, the pH differences were minuscule among the treatments and potentially not practically meaningful, and all the pH values remained within what would be considered the normal ultimate pH range (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r27">Page et&#x000A0;al., 2001</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="tab1"><label>Table 1.</label><caption><p>Impact of different freezing sizes and subsequent freezer types on pH, drip loss, purge loss, cook loss, &#x00394;E, shear force, and sensory perception of M. l<italic>ongissimus lumborum</italic> (LL).</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><colgroup><col align="left"/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="center"/><col align="center"/><col align="center"/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="center"/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/></colgroup><thead><tr><th rowspan="2"/><th rowspan="2">pH</th><th rowspan="2">Purge Loss (%)</th><th rowspan="2">Drip Loss (%)</th><th align="center" rowspan="2">Cook Loss (%)</th><th align="center" rowspan="2">&#x00394;E<sup>1</sup></th><th rowspan="2">Shear Force (N)</th><th align="center" colspan="4">Sensory Evaluation Score</th><th align="center" colspan="4">Sensory Acceptability (%)</th></tr><tr><th>Flavor</th><th>Tenderness</th><th>Juiciness</th><th>Overall</th><th>Flavor</th><th>Tenderness</th><th>Juiciness</th><th>Overall</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="15"><bold>Size Effects</bold></td></tr><tr><td>SEC</td><td>5.58<sup>B</sup></td><td>5.31<sup>A</sup></td><td>1.18<sup>B</sup></td><td>23.52</td><td>12.29<sup>A</sup></td><td>28.51<sup>B</sup></td><td>60.35</td><td>64.85</td><td>57.01</td><td>62.33</td><td>87.33</td><td>94.86</td><td>85.13</td><td>85.35</td></tr><tr><td>STK</td><td>5.62<sup>A</sup></td><td>4.36<sup>B</sup></td><td>1.36<sup>A</sup></td><td>23.27</td><td>6.54<sup>B</sup></td><td>30.86<sup>A</sup></td><td>56.47</td><td>60.94</td><td>59.72</td><td>60.42</td><td>82.99</td><td>94.39</td><td>88.61</td><td>86.45</td></tr><tr><td>SEM<sup>2</sup></td><td>0.01</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.09</td><td>0.43</td><td>0.57</td><td>1.03</td><td>3.13</td><td>3.02</td><td>4.37</td><td>3.15</td><td>3.67</td><td>7.59</td><td>6.38</td><td>3.42</td></tr><tr><td><italic>P</italic> value</td><td>0.041</td><td>0.034</td><td>0.033</td><td>0.591</td><td>&#x0003C;.0001</td><td>0.014</td><td>0.209</td><td>0.191</td><td>0.469</td><td>0.538</td><td>0.333</td><td>0.787</td><td>0.413</td><td>0.785</td></tr><tr><td colspan="15"><bold>Freezer Effects</bold></td></tr><tr><td>BLS</td><td>5.59</td><td>4.67</td><td>1.36</td><td>22.91</td><td>8.87</td><td>28.58</td><td>55.85</td><td>61.56</td><td>57.76</td><td>59.83</td><td>81.35</td><td>95.15</td><td>88.22</td><td>85.84</td></tr><tr><td>CST</td><td>5.62</td><td>4.85</td><td>1.26</td><td>23.69</td><td>9.54</td><td>30.65</td><td>58.02</td><td>64.97</td><td>59.41</td><td>62.93</td><td>82.49</td><td>94.36</td><td>86.69</td><td>87.46</td></tr><tr><td>FRI</td><td>5.59</td><td>4.99</td><td>1.19</td><td>23.60</td><td>9.84</td><td>29.83</td><td>61.37</td><td>62.16</td><td>57.93</td><td>61.36</td><td>90.46</td><td>94.34</td><td>85.9</td><td>84.27</td></tr><tr><td>SEM</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.38</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.50</td><td>1.19</td><td>3.37</td><td>3.34</td><td>4.73</td><td>3.51</td><td>4.13</td><td>7.74</td><td>6.14</td><td>3.95</td></tr><tr><td><italic>P</italic> value</td><td>0.080</td><td>0.719</td><td>0.153</td><td>0.332</td><td>0.175</td><td>0.261</td><td>0.275</td><td>0.588</td><td>0.921</td><td>0.710</td><td>0.119</td><td>0.904</td><td>0.837</td><td>0.775</td></tr><tr><td colspan="15"><bold>Size*Freezer Interaction Effects</bold></td></tr><tr><td>SEC-BLS</td><td>5.58</td><td>5.71<sup>a</sup></td><td>1.37</td><td>22.68</td><td>11.42</td><td>27.32</td><td>57.38</td><td>62.91</td><td>54.15</td><td>60.3</td><td>83.6</td><td>94.65</td><td>81.88</td><td>85.79</td></tr><tr><td>SEC-CST</td><td>5.6</td><td>5.37<sup>ab</sup></td><td>1.11</td><td>23.75</td><td>12.74</td><td>29.53</td><td>61.64</td><td>66.94</td><td>60.19</td><td>65.76</td><td>86.98</td><td>94.52</td><td>87.87</td><td>87.41</td></tr><tr><td>SEC-FRI</td><td>5.57</td><td>4.85<sup>abc</sup></td><td>1.06</td><td>24.14</td><td>12.72</td><td>28.69</td><td>62.05</td><td>64.7</td><td>56.7</td><td>60.92</td><td>90.58</td><td>95.38</td><td>85.15</td><td>82.51</td></tr><tr><td>STK-BLS</td><td>5.6</td><td>3.62<sup>c</sup></td><td>1.35</td><td>23.14</td><td>6.33</td><td>29.84</td><td>54.32</td><td>60.21</td><td>61.37</td><td>59.36</td><td>78.87</td><td>95.6</td><td>92.54</td><td>85.89</td></tr><tr><td>STK-CST</td><td>5.64</td><td>4.33<sup>bc</sup></td><td>1.40</td><td>23.63</td><td>6.34</td><td>31.78</td><td>54.4</td><td>63</td><td>58.63</td><td>60.1</td><td>76.87</td><td>94.2</td><td>85.41</td><td>87.51</td></tr><tr><td>STK-FRI</td><td>5.61</td><td>5.13<sup>ab</sup></td><td>1.32</td><td>23.05</td><td>6.96</td><td>30.96</td><td>60.7</td><td>59.61</td><td>59.16</td><td>61.79</td><td>90.34</td><td>93.08</td><td>86.62</td><td>85.89</td></tr><tr><td>SEM</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.63</td><td>0.71</td><td>1.37</td><td>4.27</td><td>4.25</td><td>5.80</td><td>4.49</td><td>6.17</td><td>9.49</td><td>7.99</td><td>5.50</td></tr><tr><td><italic>P</italic> value</td><td>0.839</td><td>0.018</td><td>0.140</td><td>0.394</td><td>0.458</td><td>0.839</td><td>0.668</td><td>0.944</td><td>0.622</td><td>0.672</td><td>0.683</td><td>0.739</td><td>0.217</td><td>0.925</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn><label><sup>a&#x02013;c</sup></label><p>Different superscript letters indicated a significant size&#x02013;freezer interaction effect (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05) within the same column.</p></fn><fn><label><sup>A,B</sup></label><p>Different superscript letters indicated a significant size effect (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05) within the same column.</p></fn><fn><p>Freezing size treatments: SEC (section freezing), STK (steak freezing).</p></fn><fn><p>Freezer type treatments: BLS (blast freezer), CST (chest freezer), FRI (refrigerator freezer).</p></fn><fn><label><sup>1</sup></label><p>&#x00394;E: Total color change.</p></fn><fn><label><sup>2</sup></label><p>SEM: Standard error of means.</p></fn><fn><p>Sensory evaluation score scales: 0&#x02009;=&#x02009;extremely dislike/extremely tough/extremely dry; 50&#x02009;=&#x02009;neither dislike nor like/neither tough nor tender/neither dry nor juicy; and 100&#x02009;=&#x02009;extremely like/extremely tender/extremely juicy.</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><table-wrap id="tab2"><label>Table 2.</label><caption><p>Impact of different freezing sizes and subsequent freezer types on pH, drip loss, purge loss, cook loss, &#x00394;E, shear force, and sensory perception of M. g<italic>luteus medius</italic> (GM).</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><colgroup><col align="left" width="6*"/><col align="center" width="6*"/><col align="center" width="6*"/><col align="char" char="." width="6*"/><col align="center" width="6*"/><col align="char" char="." width="6*"/><col align="char" char="." width="6*"/><col align="char" char="." width="6*"/><col align="char" char="." width="6*"/><col align="char" char="." width="6*"/><col align="char" char="." width="6*"/><col align="char" char="." width="6*"/><col align="char" char="." width="6*"/><col align="char" char="." width="6*"/><col align="char" char="." width="6*"/></colgroup><thead><tr><th/><th align="center" rowspan="2">pH</th><th align="center" rowspan="2">Purge Loss (%)</th><th align="center" rowspan="2">Drip Loss (%)</th><th align="center" rowspan="2">Cook Loss (%)</th><th rowspan="2">&#x00394;E<sup>1</sup></th><th rowspan="2">Shear Force (N)</th><th align="center" colspan="4">Sensory Evaluation Score</th><th align="center" colspan="4">Sensory Acceptability (%)</th></tr><tr><th/><th>Flavor</th><th>Tenderness</th><th>Juiciness</th><th>Overall</th><th>Flavor</th><th>Tenderness</th><th align="center">Juiciness</th><th align="center">Overall</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="15"><bold>Size Effects</bold></td></tr><tr><td>SEC</td><td>5.59<sup>B</sup></td><td>7.59</td><td>1.27</td><td>25.26</td><td>13.00<sup>A</sup></td><td>32.56<sup>B</sup></td><td>56.3</td><td>53.65</td><td>51.01</td><td>54.18</td><td>84.21</td><td>97.42</td><td>92.14</td><td>89.6</td></tr><tr><td>STK</td><td>5.62<sup>A</sup></td><td>7.68</td><td>1.49</td><td>25.68</td><td>6.81<sup>B</sup></td><td>36.86<sup>A</sup></td><td>54.38</td><td>55.61</td><td>52.86</td><td>55.21</td><td>79.8</td><td>97.74</td><td>92.84</td><td>87.43</td></tr><tr><td>SEM<sup>2</sup></td><td>0.01</td><td>0.78</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.50</td><td>1.00</td><td>3.10</td><td>3.95</td><td>4.44</td><td>3.81</td><td>5.19</td><td>4.12</td><td>3.83</td><td>5.46</td></tr><tr><td><italic>P</italic> value</td><td>0.010</td><td>0.930</td><td>0.070</td><td>0.542</td><td>&#x0003C;.0001</td><td>&#x0003C;.0001</td><td>0.517</td><td>0.549</td><td>0.550</td><td>0.734</td><td>0.306</td><td>0.640</td><td>0.703</td><td>0.451</td></tr><tr><td colspan="15"><bold>Freezer Effects</bold></td></tr><tr><td>BLS</td><td>5.61</td><td>7.94</td><td>1.35</td><td>25.50</td><td>10.02</td><td>34.38</td><td>56.33</td><td>55.79</td><td>54.88</td><td>55.14</td><td>86.08</td><td>98.15</td><td>93.88</td><td>90.51</td></tr><tr><td>CST</td><td>5.61</td><td>8.26</td><td>1.44</td><td>26.12</td><td>9.83</td><td>35.96</td><td>53.47</td><td>53.09</td><td>49.33</td><td>52.55</td><td>76.74</td><td>96.61</td><td>89.44</td><td>87.20</td></tr><tr><td>FRI</td><td>5.60</td><td>6.72</td><td>1.36</td><td>24.79</td><td>9.86</td><td>33.79</td><td>56.21</td><td>55.02</td><td>51.60</td><td>56.40</td><td>82.59</td><td>97.75</td><td>93.51</td><td>87.70</td></tr><tr><td>SEM</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.94</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.64</td><td>0.52</td><td>1.12</td><td>3.37</td><td>4.27</td><td>4.71</td><td>4.12</td><td>6.21</td><td>5.43</td><td>4.91</td><td>5.82</td></tr><tr><td><italic>P</italic> value</td><td>0.939</td><td>0.440</td><td>0.778</td><td>0.253</td><td>0.947</td><td>0.206</td><td>0.616</td><td>0.781</td><td>0.355</td><td>0.541</td><td>0.215</td><td>0.185</td><td>0.134</td><td>0.597</td></tr><tr><td colspan="15"><bold>Size*Freezer Interaction Effects</bold></td></tr><tr><td>SEC-BLS</td><td>5.59</td><td>6.25</td><td>1.39<sup>ab</sup></td><td>25.13</td><td>13.05</td><td>32.44</td><td>61.80</td><td>60.45<sup>a</sup></td><td>58.97</td><td>58.62</td><td>90.03</td><td>98.67<sup>a</sup></td><td>95.18</td><td>93.85<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>SEC-CST</td><td>5.58</td><td>9.34</td><td>1.10<sup>b</sup></td><td>25.12</td><td>13.09</td><td>33.89</td><td>53.83</td><td>52.29<sup>ab</sup></td><td>47.43</td><td>52.91</td><td>79.80</td><td>97.11<sup>ab</sup></td><td>90.12</td><td>91.61<sup>ab</sup></td></tr><tr><td>SEC-FRI</td><td>5.59</td><td>7.18</td><td>1.32<sup>b</sup></td><td>25.52</td><td>12.85</td><td>31.34</td><td>53.28</td><td>48.22<sup>b</sup></td><td>46.62</td><td>51.02</td><td>80.97</td><td>95.56<sup>b</sup></td><td>89.93</td><td>79.29<sup>c</sup></td></tr><tr><td>STK-BLS</td><td>5.62</td><td>9.62</td><td>1.30<sup>b</sup></td><td>25.88</td><td>6.99</td><td>36.31</td><td>50.86</td><td>51.12<sup>ab</sup></td><td>50.78</td><td>51.65</td><td>80.90</td><td>97.43<sup>ab</sup></td><td>92.26</td><td>85.63<sup>abc</sup></td></tr><tr><td>STK-CST</td><td>5.63</td><td>7.18</td><td>1.78<sup>a</sup></td><td>27.12</td><td>6.57</td><td>38.02</td><td>53.12</td><td>53.88<sup>ab</sup></td><td>51.22</td><td>52.19</td><td>73.36</td><td>96.03<sup>b</sup></td><td>88.73</td><td>80.94<sup>bc</sup></td></tr><tr><td>STK-FRI</td><td>5.62</td><td>6.25</td><td>1.40<sup>ab</sup></td><td>24.06</td><td>6.88</td><td>36.24</td><td>59.15</td><td>61.82<sup>a</sup></td><td>56.59</td><td>61.78</td><td>84.10</td><td>98.88<sup>a</sup></td><td>95.87</td><td>93.00<sup>a</sup></td></tr><tr><td>SEM</td><td>0.01</td><td>1.30</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.86</td><td>0.70</td><td>1.43</td><td>4.21</td><td>5.19</td><td>5.50</td><td>4.94</td><td>7.93</td><td>7.04</td><td>5.46</td><td>8.94</td></tr><tr><td><italic>P</italic> value</td><td>0.543</td><td>0.079</td><td>0.029</td><td>0.094</td><td>0.893</td><td>0.912</td><td>0.051</td><td>0.020</td><td>0.066</td><td>0.058</td><td>0.420</td><td>0.014</td><td>0.088</td><td>0.004</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn><label><sup>a&#x02013;c</sup></label><p>Different superscript letters indicated a significant size&#x02013;freezer interaction effect (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05) within the same column.</p></fn><fn><label><sup>A,B</sup></label><p>Different superscript letters indicated a significant size effect (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05) within the same column.</p></fn><fn><p>Freezing size treatments: SEC (section freezing), STK (steak freezing).</p></fn><fn><p>Freezer type treatments: BLS (blast freezer), CST (chest freezer), FRI (refrigerator freezer).</p></fn><fn><label><sup>1</sup></label><p>&#x00394;E: Total color change.</p></fn><fn><label><sup>2</sup></label><p>SEM: Standard error of means.</p></fn><fn><p>Sensory evaluation score scales: 0&#x02009;=&#x02009;extremely dislike/extremely tough/extremely dry; 50&#x02009;=&#x02009;neither dislike nor like/neither tough nor tender/neither dry nor juicy; and 100&#x02009;=&#x02009;extremely like/extremely tender/extremely juicy.</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><table-wrap id="tab3"><label>Table 3.</label><caption><p>Impact of different freezing sizes and subsequent freezer types on pH, drip loss, purge loss, cook loss, &#x00394;E, shear force, and sensory perception of M. s<italic>emitendinosus</italic> (ST).</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><colgroup><col align="left"/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="center"/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="center"/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="center"/><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 align="center" rowspan="2">pH</th><th align="center" rowspan="2">Purge Loss (%)</th><th align="center" rowspan="2">Drip Loss (%)</th><th align="center" rowspan="2">Cook Loss (%)</th><th align="center" rowspan="2">&#x00394;E<sup>1</sup></th><th rowspan="2">Shear Force (N)</th><th align="center" colspan="4">Sensory Evaluation Score</th><th align="center" colspan="4">Sensory Acceptability (%)</th></tr><tr><th/><th>Flavor</th><th>Tenderness</th><th>Juiciness</th><th>Overall</th><th>Flavor</th><th>Tenderness</th><th>Juiciness</th><th>Overall</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="15"><bold>Size Effects</bold></td></tr><tr><td>SEC</td><td>5.63<sup>A</sup></td><td>9.24<sup>A</sup></td><td>1.40</td><td>25.46</td><td>12.60<sup>A</sup></td><td>42.26</td><td>45.91</td><td>38.69</td><td>36.42</td><td>40.78</td><td>82.28</td><td>88.14</td><td>95.76</td><td>87.17</td></tr><tr><td>STK</td><td>5.57<sup>B</sup></td><td>5.60<sup>B</sup></td><td>1.53</td><td>25.96</td><td>7.40<sup>B</sup></td><td>42.17</td><td>43.27</td><td>41.38</td><td>36.17</td><td>41.69</td><td>78.10</td><td>90.42</td><td>95.90</td><td>88.88</td></tr><tr><td>SEM<sup>2</sup></td><td>0.01</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.64</td><td>4.49</td><td>3.48</td><td>4.14</td><td>4.48</td><td>11.26</td><td>6.56</td><td>4.90</td><td>7.38</td></tr><tr><td><italic>P</italic> value</td><td>&#x0003C;.0001</td><td>&#x0003C;.0001</td><td>0.230</td><td>0.451</td><td>&#x0003C;.0001</td><td>0.894</td><td>0.338</td><td>0.375</td><td>0.937</td><td>0.751</td><td>0.297</td><td>0.351</td><td>0.918</td><td>0.520</td></tr><tr><td colspan="15"><bold>Freezer Effects</bold></td></tr><tr><td>BLS</td><td>5.59<sup>y</sup></td><td>6.81<sup>y</sup></td><td>1.43</td><td>25.97</td><td>9.95</td><td>42.21</td><td>46.85</td><td>43.69</td><td>37.50</td><td>43.91</td><td>84.28</td><td>90.70</td><td>95.82</td><td>88.97</td></tr><tr><td>CST</td><td>5.60<sup>xy</sup></td><td>7.92<sup>x</sup></td><td>1.47</td><td>25.58</td><td>9.95</td><td>41.90</td><td>44.21</td><td>39.59</td><td>37.39</td><td>40.94</td><td>78.24</td><td>88.26</td><td>95.94</td><td>88.75</td></tr><tr><td>FRI</td><td>5.62<sup>x</sup></td><td>7.54<sup>xy</sup></td><td>1.50</td><td>25.58</td><td>10.10</td><td>42.53</td><td>42.70</td><td>36.82</td><td>34.00</td><td>38.86</td><td>77.76</td><td>88.90</td><td>95.72</td><td>86.29</td></tr><tr><td>SEM</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.35</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.81</td><td>4.66</td><td>3.73</td><td>4.39</td><td>4.66</td><td>11.26</td><td>6.83</td><td>5.04</td><td>8.22</td></tr><tr><td><italic>P</italic> value</td><td>0.018</td><td>0.022</td><td>0.814</td><td>0.786</td><td>0.933</td><td>0.841</td><td>0.411</td><td>0.144</td><td>0.561</td><td>0.305</td><td>0.276</td><td>0.606</td><td>0.981</td><td>0.600</td></tr><tr><td colspan="15"><bold>Size*Freezer Interaction Effects</bold></td></tr><tr><td>SEC-BLS</td><td>5.62</td><td>8.84</td><td>1.34</td><td>26.70<sup>a</sup></td><td>12.62</td><td>42.68</td><td>49.38</td><td>42.40</td><td>38.38</td><td>44.12</td><td>87.30</td><td>90.76</td><td>95.94</td><td>87.18</td></tr><tr><td>SEC-CST</td><td>5.64</td><td>9.79</td><td>1.37</td><td>25.05<sup>ab</sup></td><td>12.62</td><td>41.00</td><td>46.91</td><td>41.34</td><td>38.28</td><td>42.54</td><td>82.02</td><td>86.37</td><td>95.89</td><td>87.95</td></tr><tr><td>SEC-FRI</td><td>5.64</td><td>9.11</td><td>1.49</td><td>24.64<sup>b</sup></td><td>12.56</td><td>43.12</td><td>41.43</td><td>32.32</td><td>32.61</td><td>35.68</td><td>76.13</td><td>86.84</td><td>95.43</td><td>86.35</td></tr><tr><td>STK-BLS</td><td>5.55</td><td>4.77</td><td>1.51</td><td>25.24<sup>ab</sup></td><td>7.27</td><td>41.74</td><td>44.33</td><td>44.97</td><td>36.62</td><td>43.71</td><td>80.69</td><td>90.64</td><td>95.71</td><td>90.53</td></tr><tr><td>STK-CST</td><td>5.57</td><td>6.06</td><td>1.57</td><td>26.11<sup>ab</sup></td><td>7.27</td><td>42.81</td><td>41.51</td><td>37.83</td><td>36.50</td><td>39.33</td><td>73.93</td><td>89.92</td><td>96.00</td><td>89.50</td></tr><tr><td>STK-FRI</td><td>5.60</td><td>5.98</td><td>1.51</td><td>26.52<sup>ab</sup></td><td>7.64</td><td>41.95</td><td>43.97</td><td>41.33</td><td>35.40</td><td>42.03</td><td>79.30</td><td>90.67</td><td>95.99</td><td>86.24</td></tr><tr><td>SEM</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.68</td><td>1.03</td><td>5.22</td><td>4.53</td><td>5.16</td><td>5.27</td><td>13.69</td><td>7.65</td><td>5.38</td><td>8.83</td></tr><tr><td><italic>P</italic> value</td><td>0.209</td><td>0.492</td><td>0.697</td><td>0.034</td><td>0.864</td><td>0.194</td><td>0.382</td><td>0.216</td><td>0.779</td><td>0.345</td><td>0.419</td><td>0.727</td><td>0.943</td><td>0.819</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn><label><sup>a,b</sup></label><p>Different superscript letters indicated a significant size-freezer interaction effect (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05) within the same column.</p></fn><fn><label><sup>A,B</sup></label><p>Different superscript letters indicated a significant size effect (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05) within the same column.</p></fn><fn><label><sup>x,y</sup></label><p>Different superscript letters indicated a significant freezer effect (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05) within the same column.</p></fn><fn><p>Freezing size treatments: SEC (section freezing), STK (steak freezing).</p></fn><fn><p>Freezer type treatments: BLS (blast freezer), CST (chest freezer), FRI (refrigerator freezer).</p></fn><fn><label><sup>1</sup></label><p>&#x00394;E: Total color change.</p></fn><fn><label><sup>2</sup></label><p>SEM: Standard error of means.</p></fn><fn><p>Sensory evaluation score scales: 0&#x02009;=&#x02009;extremely dislike/extremely tough/extremely dry; 50&#x02009;=&#x02009;neither dislike nor like/neither tough nor tender/neither dry nor juicy; and 100&#x02009;=&#x02009;extremely like/extremely tender/extremely juicy.</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><p>The WHC of the different muscles was analyzed using purge loss, drip loss, and cook loss. A size&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;freezer interaction effect was observed on the purge loss of LL, in which SEC-BLS from LL had a greater purge loss compared with STK-BLS and STK-CST (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05). Additionally, SEC-BLS had a similar purge loss with SEC-CST, SEC-FRI, and STK-FRI in LL(<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003E;&#x02009;0.05). Drip loss was influenced by size in the LL muscle, exhibiting greater drip loss in STK samples compared with SEC samples (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05). No significant impact was observed for cook loss of LL samples.</p><p>In the GM muscle, purge loss and cook loss were not impacted by the treatments (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003E;&#x02009;0.05). The drip loss, however, was impacted by size&#x000D7;freezer interaction effect in GM samples. Greater drip loss was observed in the STK-CST sample compared with the SEC-CST, SEC-FRI, and STK-BLS samples (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05). Those treatments, however, were not different from SEC-BLS and STK-FRI (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003E;&#x02009;0.05).</p><p>Size and freezer main effects were observed for purge loss in ST, revealing greater loss in SEC samples than in STK samples (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05). The CST samples from ST had the highest purge loss, whereas BLS samples had the lowest (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05), although both freezer treatments had similar purge loss compared with FRI samples (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003E;&#x02009;0.05). No significant impact was observed on drip loss in ST muscle. Conversely, a significant size&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;freezer interaction effect was reported for the cook loss of ST. The SEC-BLS had greater cook loss compared with SEC-FRI (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05). Both treatments were not significantly different from the SEC-CST, STK-BLS, STK-CST, and STK-FRI (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003E;&#x02009;0.05).</p><p>Purge loss in LL was impacted by a size&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;freezer interaction effect (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05), whereas purge loss in ST was impacted by both size effects (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05) and freezer effects (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05). Greater purge loss was observed in SEC samples compared with STK samples from both LL and ST. The greater purge loss from the SEC samples corresponds to their slower freezing rates during both the first and second freezing in this study. The amount of meat exudate continues to increase after freezing and thawing, following the structural damage induced by ice crystals. It was suggested that greater loss is often observed as the freezing time increases beyond 19.5&#x000A0;min (Leygonie, 2012). Hence, the higher purge loss observed from SEC samples in this study is attributable to delayed freezing, which may have retarded ice crystal nucleation (slower freezing rate) and promoted the formation of larger and irregular extra-myofibrillar ice crystals (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r19">Lee et&#x000A0;al., 2022</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r7">Gruji&#x00107; et&#x000A0;al., 1993</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r30">Raheli&#x00107; et&#x000A0;al., 1985</xref>), resulting in greater cryo-damage to the product structure. Similar results were previously reported by Setyabrata et&#x000A0;al., (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r37">2019</xref>), in which a faster freezing rate generated less purge loss compared with a slower freezing rate.</p><p>Conversely, drip loss was significantly lower in SEC samples compared with STK samples. The reduced loss might be due to the higher purge loss in SEC samples, and thus, relatively less drip could be released compared with STK samples (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r16">H. W. Kim et&#x000A0;al., 2018</xref>). There was a muscle-specific impact of the freezing treatments on cook loss, showing a significant difference only within the ST samples, where the SEC-BLS treatment had the highest cook loss (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05). The difference in muscle responses could potentially be attributed to the greater connective tissue commonly observed in ST muscle. The presence of high connective tissue was previously reported to cause greater cook loss due to the shrinkage of the connective tissue during the cooking process (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r28">Purslow, 2005</xref>). Additionally, due to its functionality as a locomotive muscle, ST muscles often have greater type IIb muscle fibers (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r24">Mashima et&#x000A0;al., 2019</xref>). A recent report suggested that type IIb fiber-based muscles expelled more water during cooking compared with those with more type I fiber (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r40">Vaskoska et&#x000A0;al., 2020</xref>), which explains the difference observed only in the ST muscle in this current study. Further study, however, will be needed to confirm the speculation.</p></sec><sec id="sec3.3"><title>Color and oxidative stability</title><p>A 5-d simulated retail display was conducted to identify the impact of different freezing treatments on the meat color quality and stability of the different beef muscles. Regardless of the muscle, no three-way interactions were observed for all color traits (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003E;&#x02009;0.05). With the exception of CIE <italic>L</italic>* for GM muscle, significant size&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;day interactions were observed in all color traits, regardless of specific muscle types (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="f3">Figure&#x000A0;3</xref>). The lightness (CIE <italic>L*</italic>), redness (CIE <italic>a*</italic>), yellowness (CIE <italic>b*</italic>), and chroma values were higher in SEC samples on day 1 of display compared with other samples (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05). The SEC samples were observed to generally maintain a higher color quality value until day 3 or day 4 of display, where the SEC sample had similar color quality compared with STK samples on day 1 of display (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003E;&#x02009;0.05). Within the same display day, SEC samples consistently maintained greater color value compared with STK throughout the simulated display (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05). Similarly, instrumental discoloration (hue angle) was also significantly lower in SEC D1 samples compared with all samples during the color display (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="f3">Figure&#x000A0;3E</xref>). The SEC samples maintained lower discoloration until day 3 of the display in which it had similar discoloration to STK D1 or D2 samples (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003E; 0.05). The results of the trained color panel evaluation were similar to the instrumental measurements, indicating a greater lean color (redness) score and lower discoloration score for SEC samples compared with STK samples from the beginning until the end of the simulated retail display (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05) (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="f4">Figure&#x000A0;4</xref>). Hence, the SEC samples indicated greater color quality compared with the STK samples, regardless of muscle type. Although greater SEC had greater color quality, a greater &#x00394;E value was observed in these samples compared with STK samples in all muscles (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05, <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab1">Tables&#x000A0;1</xref>, <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab2">2</xref>, and <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab3">3</xref>), indicating lower color stability and more color alteration in SEC samples during the retail display. No interaction and main freezer effect were observed on &#x00394;E value for all the samples (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003E;&#x02009;0.05).</p><fig id="f3"><label>Figure 3.</label><caption><p>Impact of different freezing sizes and subsequent freezer types on the instrumental color of <italic>longissimus lumborum</italic> (LL), <italic>gluteus medius</italic> (GM), and <italic>semitendinosus</italic> (ST) during 5 d of the display period. (A)&#x000A0;CIE <italic>L*</italic>, (B)&#x000A0;CIE <italic>a*</italic>, (C)&#x000A0;CIE <italic>b*</italic>, (D)&#x000A0;chroma, (E)&#x000A0;hue angle. <sup>A&#x02013;I</sup> Different superscript letters indicated a significant size&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;day interaction effect (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05) within the same muscle. Freezing size treatments: SEC (section freezing), STK (steak freezing). Freezer type treatments: BLS (blast freezer), CST (chest freezer), FRI (refrigerator freezer).</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="3a.png"/><graphic xlink:href="3b.png"/></fig><fig id="f4"><label>Figure 4.</label><caption><p>Impact of different freezing sizes and subsequent freezer types on sensory color attributes of <italic>longissimus lumborum</italic> (LL), <italic>gluteus medius</italic> (GM), and <italic>semitendinosus</italic> (ST) during 5 d of the display period. (A)&#x000A0;Sensory lean score and (B)&#x000A0;sensory discoloration score. <sup>A&#x02013;G</sup>Different superscript letters indicated a significant size&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;day interaction effect (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05) within the same muscle. Freezing size treatments: SEC (section freezing), STK (steak freezing). Freezer type treatments: BLS (blast freezer), CST (chest freezer), FRI (refrigerator freezer).</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="4.png"/></fig><p>Generally, freezing leads to a reduction in color and color stability observed in meat products (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r8">Hergenreder et&#x000A0;al., 2013</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r2">Aroeira et&#x000A0;al., 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r14">Kim and Kim, 2017</xref>). Furthermore, repeated freeze-thawing practice is known to reduce color integrity in meat (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r29">Qi et&#x000A0;al., 2012</xref>) resulting from its extensive cryo-damage to the muscle structure. In the current study, SEC samples exhibited better color quality, following the 2 freezing treatments, despite their slower freezing rates, which could have caused more cryo-damage due to the formation of larger ice crystals within the products. The lower color quality observed in STK could potentially be due to the exposure of the product surface to the purge accumulated within the packaging. Meat exudate is well-known to contain high heme-iron, which could potentially lead to greater oxidation in meat (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r22">Liu et&#x000A0;al., 2023</xref>), thus resulting in lower color quality in the STK samples. While SEC samples were also exposed to the exudate during the process, a fresh new product surface was generated during fabrication into steaks before display. The larger size of the SEC samples likely limited the interaction with purge to the outer portion of the product, shielding the interior portion from the environment and hence limiting the extent of color degradation. This could potentially explain the improved color quality observed in SEC compared with STK samples.</p><p>Additionally, a greater extent of cryo-damage from larger ice crystals to the muscle cell will also lead to mitochondrial disruption (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r19">Lee et&#x000A0;al., 2022</xref>). The loss of mitochondrial activity might contribute to the improved color quality initially observed in SEC samples. Mitochondria are known to compete with myoglobin for oxygen and could hinder the development of oxymyoglobin from presenting a bright cherry-red color in beef (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r32">Ramanathan et&#x000A0;al., 2020</xref>). The disruption of mitochondria also leads to the release of lysosomal enzymes and disruption in metmyoglobin-reducing ability, impairing oxidative stability and causing discoloration (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r11">Jia et&#x000A0;al., 2021</xref>). This could potentially explain the currently observed color changes in SEC samples, in which greater color quality was observed in the beginning, because myoglobin was able to react with oxygen to generate oxymyoglobin without competition from mitochondria. However, the color deteriorates quickly during the display period as the reducing ability of the sample was impaired due to cryo-damage.</p><p>The lipid oxidation extent was measured using TBARS and was found to vary between the different muscles used in the current study (<xref ref-type="fig" rid="f5">Figure&#x000A0;5</xref>). A significant size&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;freezer&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;day interaction was identified in LL, demonstrating the greatest TBARS value in SEC-FRI samples compared with other treatments at day 1 of display (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05). On day 5 of display, SEC-CST had higher lipid oxidation compared with other samples (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05), followed by SEC-BLS, SEC-FRI, and STK-FRI, which were not different from each other (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003E;&#x02009;0.05). The STK-BLS and STK-CST had the lowest level of oxidation (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05) at the end of the 5-d display, with both treatments sharing similar values to samples at the beginning of the display (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003E;&#x02009;0.05). The GM muscle was the sole muscle impacted by the display period effect, with all samples having greater lipid oxidation at the end of the 5-d display period (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.01). A size&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;day effect was found in the ST muscle, indicating no significant difference in lipid oxidation in all treatments, initially. However, SEC samples had higher TBARS values compared with STK samples at the end of the display, regardless of freezer treatments (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05).</p><fig id="f5"><label>Figure 5.</label><caption><p>Impact of different freezing sizes and subsequent freezer types on lipid oxidation (TBARS) of <italic>longissimus lumborum</italic> (LL), <italic>gluteus medius</italic> (GM), and <italic>semitendinosus</italic> (ST) before and after display. <sup>a&#x02013;e</sup>Different superscript letters indicated a significant size&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;freezer&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;day interaction effect (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05) within the same muscle. <sup>A&#x02013;C</sup>Different superscript letters indicated a significant size&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;day interaction effect (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05) within the same muscle. <sup>X,Y</sup>Different superscript letters indicated a significant day effect (P&#x0003C;0.05) within the same muscle. Freezing size treatments: SEC (section freezing), STK (steak freezing). Freezer type treatments: BLS (blast freezer), CST (chest freezer), FRI (refrigerator freezer).</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="5.png"/></fig><p>Multiple freezing-thaw cycles have been reported to induce greater oxidation of the final meat products due to the release of pro-oxidants resulting from muscle cell disruption (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r42">Xia et&#x000A0;al., 2009</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r21">Leygonie et&#x000A0;al., 2012</xref>). Similar to the current study, the application of blast freezing followed by different freezing methods increased the extent of lipid oxidation in pork patties, regardless of the subsequent freezing methods (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r39">Tuell et&#x000A0;al., 2020</xref>). Although the oxidation was increased, in general, freezing the product in a smaller size reduced the extent of the lipid oxidation. In STK products, the faster freezing rate and smaller ice crystal formation could limit the degree of cryo-damage to the muscle structure. This could reduce the extent of pro-oxidant release, thus increasing the oxidative stability of the product compared with SEC samples. Supporting the currently observed oxidation results, SEC samples were also observed to have greater color changes and discoloration rates compared with STK samples. This potentially indicated that the extensive damage from the larger ice crystals greatly reduced the antioxidative capacity of SEC samples.</p></sec><sec id="sec3.4"><title>WBSF</title><p>The WBSF value was only significantly affected by the size effect in LL and GM, demonstrating greater tenderness in SEC compared with STK in both muscles (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05, <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab1">Tables&#x000A0;1</xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab2">2</xref>). No impact was observed in ST muscles with similar WBSF values regardless of the treatments (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003E;&#x02009;0.05, <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab3">Table&#x000A0;3</xref>). A decrease in shear force following freezing has often been reported in the current literature and is attributed to ice crystal formation damaging muscle structure (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r6">Grayson et&#x000A0;al., 2014</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r2">Aroeira et&#x000A0;al., 2016</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r37">Setyabrata et&#x000A0;al., 2019</xref>). Although both treatments underwent a freezing process, the current results indicated greater tenderness in SEC samples compared with STK samples. This could be attributed to the nucleation of larger ice crystals resulting from a slower freezing rate in the SEC samples.</p><p>Additionally, the greater cell disruption by the ice crystals could also lead to early release and activation of protease enzymes previously contained within the cell. Previous reports by Lee et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r20">2021</xref>) and Stafford et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r38">2024</xref>) observed greater activation of calpain 1 and cathepsin B on previously frozen samples compared with nonfrozen samples. Those authors attributed the changes to increased ice crystal damage, disrupting muscle cells and organelle structures. This could potentially contribute to improved tenderness observed in SEC samples compared with STK samples, although further confirmation of these protease activities will need to be made because both SEC and STK samples were frozen in the current study. The release of these enzymes and the freezing damage, however, did not impact the tenderness of the ST muscle, potentially due to the high connective tissue present in the muscle compared with LL and GM. Although there might be some connective tissue structural damage from the ice crystals, it is possible that the extent of structural damage was minimal and did not immediately translate to greater improvement in tenderness for ST samples.</p></sec><sec id="sec3.5"><title>Consumer sensory evaluation</title><p>The demographic characteristics of the 120 participants of the sensory evaluation are presented in <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab4">Supplementary Table&#x000A0;1</xref>. The majority (51.7%) of the participants indicated that flavor was the most important palatability trait when consuming beef, followed by tenderness (27.8%) and juiciness (20.6%). The participants mainly preferred their beef cooked to medium-rare (37.8%) or medium (30%), and 81.1% consumed beef 1&#x02013;5 times/wk.</p><p>Consumer panels rated flavor, tenderness, juiciness, and overall quality similarly for LL and ST muscles, regardless of product size and freezer type (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003E;&#x02009;0.05, <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab1">Tables&#x000A0;1</xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab3">3</xref>). Likewise, the consumer panels also showed similar acceptability of those palatability attributes in LL and ST muscle (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003E;&#x02009;0.05, <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab1">Tables&#x000A0;1</xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab3">3</xref>). Only tenderness in GM muscle was significantly impacted by the size&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;freezer interaction effect (<xref ref-type="table" rid="tab2">Table&#x000A0;2</xref>). The SEC-FRI had a lower tenderness-liking score compared with SEC-BLS and STK-FRI (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05), while they were not different compared with all other treatments (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003E;&#x02009;0.05). Correspondingly, the consumer acceptability evaluation for GM also showed similar patterns, where SEC-BLS and STK-FRI had the highest tenderness and overall acceptability ratings compared with other treatments (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05). Overall acceptability for GM muscle was also impacted by the size&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;freezer effect, showing SEC-FRI to have the lowest acceptability rating (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05).</p><p>The current survey results highlight the changing consumer preferences and focus when selecting beef products. Although tenderness has been the most important palatability trait, recent studies have reported a shift to flavor as the most important palatability trait (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r25">McKillip et&#x000A0;al., 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r9">Hernandez et&#x000A0;al., 2023</xref>). This change in preferences has been attributed to the improvement and implementation of aging programs to promote consistent production of more tender products (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r23">Martinez et&#x000A0;al., 2017</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r5">Gonzalez et&#x000A0;al., 2024</xref>).</p><p>Although freezing is generally perceived to negatively impact meat palatability, consumer ratings in the current study suggested that different freezing conditions only minimally impacted LL and ST muscle. Eckhardt et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r4">2024</xref>) reported similar results, noting minimal differences in palatability traits for striploin steaks subjected to double freezing using both blast and consumer freezing methods. Differences in sensory rating were observed only in the GM muscle in the current study. Contradicting the WBSF results, SEC-FRI was rated as the least tender by consumers, although the same treatment was found to have the lowest WBSF value. This inconsistency could potentially be attributed to the high tenderness variation in GM muscle compared with LL and ST (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r33">Rhee et&#x000A0;al., 2004</xref>). Those authors reported that GM had greater variation in connective tissue and sarcomere length, which were suggested to be responsible for the tenderness variation observed in the muscle. It is of interest to note that although not significantly different, STK samples consistently received lower flavor liking and acceptability compared with SEC in all muscles, warranting further investigation.</p></sec></sec><sec id="sec4"><title>Conclusions</title><p>The present study found the importance of product size and subsequent consumer freezing on the quality and palatability of 3 different beef muscles. Freezing beef in larger sizes (such as subprimal cuts) exhibited a slower freezing rate, causing greater moisture loss and more lipid oxidation in the product compared with a product frozen as a steak. However, freezing bigger products generated superior color quality compared with steak freezing, likely due to the generation of freshly cut steak surfaces following fabrication. Regarding palatability, steak freezing increased the product&#x02019;s toughness based on instrumental analysis of LL and GM, whereas ST samples were not impacted, potentially due to their high connective tissue content. Consumer rated all sensory traits similarly for LL and ST muscles, whereas SEC-FRI received a lower tenderness rating in GM muscle. The findings of the present study provide practical implications for the meat industry in developing post-harvest processing strategies. Based on the current results, product size during freezing will govern frozen meat quality and could potentially cause detrimental effects on consumer acceptability and satisfaction. Subsequent consumer freezing, however, only minimally impacted the final product quality.</p></sec></body><back><ack><title>Acknowledgment</title><p>Research coordinated by the National Cattlemen&#x02019;s Beef Association, a contractor to the Beef Checkoff. We would also extend our appreciation to the Arkansas Beef Council for their support. Additionally, we would like to thank Tim Johnson, Jimena Rodriguez, and Carson Taylor for their help in sample collection and processing for the project.</p></ack><sec id="sec5"><title>Author Contribution</title><p>Paul Olaoluwaniyi Dahunsi: Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Visualization, Writing &#x02013; Original Draft</p><p>Ashley Rivera Pitti: Data curation, Investigation, Visualization</p><p>M. Sebastian Hernandez: Data curation, Investigation, Writing &#x02013; Review and Editing</p><p>Thomas W. Dobbins: Data curation, Investigation, Writing &#x02013; Review and Editing</p><p>Morgan Denzer: Formal analysis, Methodology, Writing &#x02013; Review and Editing</p><p>Palika Dias-Morse: Methodology, Writing &#x02013; Review and Editing</p><p>Kelly R. Vierck: Conceptualization, Methodology, Writing &#x02013; Review and Editing</p><p>Jerrad F. Legako: Conceptualization, Writing &#x02013; Review and Editing</p><p>Derico Setyabrata: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Project administration, Resources, Writing &#x02013; Review and Editing</p></sec><ref-list><title>Literature Cited</title><ref id="r1"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ali</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>W.</given-names> <surname>Zhang</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>N.</given-names> <surname>Rajput</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. A.</given-names> <surname>Khan</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>C. B.</given-names> <surname>Li</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>G. H.</given-names> <surname>Zhou</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2015</year>. <article-title>Effect of multiple freeze-thaw cycles on the quality of chicken breast meat</article-title>. <source>Food Chem</source>. <volume>173</volume>:<fpage>808</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>814</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2014.09.095</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r2"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Aroeira</surname>, <given-names>C. N.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R. A.</given-names> <surname>Torres Filho</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>P. R.</given-names> <surname>Fontes</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>A. L. S.</given-names> <surname>Ramos</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>L. A. M.</given-names> <surname>Gomide</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. M.</given-names> <surname>Ladeira</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>E. M.</given-names> <surname>Ramos</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2016</year>. <article-title>Effect of freezing prior to aging on myoglobin redox forms and CIE color of beef from Nellore and Aberdeen Angus cattle</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>125</volume>:<fpage>16</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>21</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.02.006</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r3"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Chen</surname>, <given-names>Q.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>Y.</given-names> <surname>Xie</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J.</given-names> <surname>Xi</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>Y.</given-names> <surname>Guo</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>H.</given-names> <surname>Qian</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>Y.</given-names> <surname>Cheng</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>Y.</given-names> <surname>Chen</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>W.</given-names> <surname>Yao</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2018</year>. <article-title>Characterization of lipid oxidation process of beef during repeated freeze-thaw by electron spin resonance technology and Raman spectroscopy</article-title>. <source>Food Chem</source>. <volume>243</volume>:<fpage>58</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>64</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.09.115</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r4"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Eckhardt</surname>, <given-names>M. E.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>T. E.</given-names> <surname>Lawrence</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>T. C.</given-names> <surname>Tennant</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>L. W.</given-names> <surname>Lucherk</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2024</year>. <article-title>Double freezing beef strip loin steaks at blast or consumer freezing temperatures in vacuum and overwrapped packaging</article-title>. <source>Meat Muscle Biol</source>. <fpage>8</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb.17712</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r5"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Gonzalez</surname>, <given-names>A. A.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>E. P.</given-names> <surname>Williams</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>T. E.</given-names> <surname>Schwartz</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>A. N.</given-names> <surname>Arnold</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D. B.</given-names> <surname>Griffin</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R. K.</given-names> <surname>Miller</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>K. B.</given-names> <surname>Gehring</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. C.</given-names> <surname>Brooks</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. F.</given-names> <surname>Legako</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>C. C.</given-names> <surname>Carr</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>G. G.</given-names> <surname>Mafi</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>, and <string-name><given-names>J. W.</given-names> <surname>Savell</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2024</year>. <article-title>National Beef Tenderness Survey&#x02014;2022: Consumer sensory panel evaluations and Warner-Bratzler shear force of beef steaks from retail and foodservice</article-title>. <source>Meat Muscle Biol</source>. <fpage>8</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb.16997</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r6"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Grayson</surname>, <given-names>A. L.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D. A.</given-names> <surname>King</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>, and <string-name><given-names>T. L.</given-names> <surname>Wheeler</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2014</year>. <article-title>Freezing and thawing or freezing, thawing, and aging effects on beef tenderness</article-title>. <source>J. Anim. Sci</source>. <volume>92</volume>:<fpage>2735</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>2740</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2014-7613</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r7"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Gruji&#x00107;</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>L.</given-names> <surname>Petrovi&#x00107;</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>B.</given-names> <surname>Pikula</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>L.</given-names> <surname>Amid&#x0017E;i&#x00107;</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>1993</year>. <article-title>Definition of the optimum freezing rate-1. Investigation of structure and ultrastructure of beef M. longissimus dorsi frozen at different freezing rates</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>33</volume>:<fpage>301</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>318</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-1740(93)90003-Z</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r8"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hergenreder</surname>, <given-names>J. E.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. J.</given-names> <surname>Hosch</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>K. A.</given-names> <surname>Varnold</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>A. L.</given-names> <surname>Haack</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>L. S.</given-names> <surname>Senaratne</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>S.</given-names> <surname>Pokharel</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>C.</given-names> <surname>Beauchamp</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>B.</given-names> <surname>Lobaugh</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>C. R.</given-names> <surname>Calkins</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2013</year>. <article-title>The effects of freezing and thawing rates on tenderness, sensory quality, and retail display of beef subprimals</article-title>. <source>J. Anim. Sci</source>. <volume>91</volume>:<fpage>483</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>490</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2012-5223</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r9"><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>. <fpage>7</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb.15710</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r10"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Honikel</surname>, <given-names>K. O.</given-names></string-name></person-group> <year>1998</year>. <article-title>Reference methods for the assessment of physical characteristics of meat</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>49</volume>:<fpage>447</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>457</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/s0309-1740(98)00034-5</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r11"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Jia</surname>, <given-names>W.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R.</given-names> <surname>Zhang</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>L.</given-names> <surname>Liu</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>Z.</given-names> <surname>Zhu</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M.</given-names> <surname>Xu</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>L.</given-names> <surname>Shi</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2021</year>. <article-title>Molecular mechanism of protein dynamic change for Hengshan goat meat during freezing storage based on high-throughput proteomics</article-title>. <source>Food Res. Int</source>. <volume>143</volume>:<fpage>110289</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2021.110289</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r12"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kiani</surname>, <given-names>H.</given-names></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>D. W.</given-names> <surname>Sun</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2011</year>. <article-title>Water crystallization and its importance to freezing of foods: A review</article-title>. <source>Trends Food Sci. Tech</source>. <volume>22</volume>:<fpage>407</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>426</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2011.04.011</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r13"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kim</surname>, <given-names>H. W.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. H.</given-names> <surname>Kim</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. K.</given-names> <surname>Seo</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D.</given-names> <surname>Setyabrata</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>Y. H. B.</given-names> <surname>Kim</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2018</year>. <article-title>Effects of aging/freezing sequence and freezing rate on meat quality and oxidative stability of pork loins</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>139</volume>:<fpage>162</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>170</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.01.024</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r14"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kim</surname>, <given-names>H. W.</given-names></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>Y. H. B. B.</given-names> <surname>Kim</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2017</year>. <article-title>Effects of aging and freezing/thawing sequence on quality attributes of bovine Mm. gluteus medius and biceps femoris</article-title>. <source>Asian Austral. J. Anim</source>. <volume>30</volume>:<fpage>254</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>261</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.5713/ajas.16.0279</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r15"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kim</surname>, <given-names>Y. H. B.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>C.</given-names> <surname>Liesse</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J.</given-names> <surname>Choe</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>R.</given-names> <surname>Kemp</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2015</year>. <article-title>Effect of different freezing/thawing methods on meat quality characteristics of pre-aged lamb loins</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>101</volume>:<fpage>137</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>138</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.09.090</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r16"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Kim</surname>, <given-names>Y. H. B.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D.</given-names> <surname>Ma</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D.</given-names> <surname>Setyabrata</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. M.</given-names> <surname>Farouk</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>S. M.</given-names> <surname>Lonergan</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>E.</given-names> <surname>Huff-Lonergan</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>M. C.</given-names> <surname>Hunt</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2018</year>. <article-title>Understanding postmortem biochemical processes and post-harvest aging factors to develop novel smart-aging strategies</article-title>. <source>Meat Science</source>. <volume>144</volume>, pp.<fpage>74</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>90</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.031</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r17"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>King</surname>, <given-names>D. A.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. C.</given-names> <surname>Hunt</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>S.</given-names> <surname>Barbut</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. R.</given-names> <surname>Claus</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>Darren P.</given-names> <surname>Cornforth</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>P.</given-names> <surname>Joseph</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>Y. H. B.</given-names> <surname>Kim</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>G.</given-names> <surname>Lindahl</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R. A.</given-names> <surname>Mancini</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. N.</given-names> <surname>Nair</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>K. J.</given-names> <surname>Merok</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>A.</given-names> <surname>Milkowski</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>A.</given-names> <surname>Mohan</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>F.</given-names> <surname>Pohlman</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R.</given-names> <surname>Ramanathan</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>C. R.</given-names> <surname>Raines</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M.</given-names> <surname>Seyfert</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>O.</given-names> <surname>S&#x000F8;rheim</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>S. P.</given-names> <surname>Suman</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>M.</given-names> <surname>Weber</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2023</year>. <article-title>American Meat Science Association Guidelines for Meat Color Measurement</article-title>. <source>Meat Muscle Biol</source>. <volume>6</volume>:<fpage>12473</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>12474</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb.12473</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r18"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lambooij</surname>, <given-names>M. S.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J.</given-names> <surname>Veldwijk</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>P.</given-names> <surname>van Gils</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. J. J.</given-names> <surname>Mangen</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>E.</given-names> <surname>Over</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>A.</given-names> <surname>Suijkerbuijk</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J.</given-names> <surname>Polder</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>G. A.</given-names> <surname>de Wit</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>M.</given-names> <surname>Opsteegh</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2019</year>. <article-title>Consumers&#x02019; preferences for freezing of meat to prevent toxoplasmosis&#x02013; A stated preference approach</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>149</volume>:<fpage>1</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>8</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.11.001</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r19"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lee</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>K.</given-names> <surname>Jo</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>H. G.</given-names> <surname>Jeong</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>Y.-S.</given-names> <surname>Choi</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>H.</given-names> <surname>Kyoung</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>S.</given-names> <surname>Jung</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2022</year>. <article-title>Freezing-induced denaturation of myofibrillar proteins in frozen meat</article-title>. <source>Crit. Rev. Food Sci</source>. <volume>64</volume>:<fpage>1385</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>1402</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1080/10408398.2022.2116557</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r20"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Lee</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>K.</given-names> <surname>Jo</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>H. G.</given-names> <surname>Jeong</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>H. I.</given-names> <surname>Yong</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>Y.-S.</given-names> <surname>Choi</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D.</given-names> <surname>Kim</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>S.</given-names> <surname>Jung</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2021</year>. <article-title>Freezing-then-aging treatment improved the protein digestibility of beef in an in vitro infant digestion model</article-title>. <source>Food Chem</source>. <volume>350</volume>:<fpage>129224</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2021.129224</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r21"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Leygonie</surname>, <given-names>C.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>T. J.</given-names> <surname>Britz</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>L. C.</given-names> <surname>Hoffman</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2012</year>. <article-title>Impact of freezing and thawing on the quality of meat: Review</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>91</volume>:<fpage>93</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>98</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.01.013</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r22"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Liu</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>C.</given-names> <surname>Pan</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>H.</given-names> <surname>Yue</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>H.</given-names> <surname>Li</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D.</given-names> <surname>Liu</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>Z.</given-names> <surname>Hu</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>Y.</given-names> <surname>Hu</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>X.</given-names> <surname>Yu</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>W.</given-names> <surname>Dong</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>Y.</given-names> <surname>Feng</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2023</year>. <article-title>Proteomic and metabolomic analysis of ageing beef exudate to determine that iron metabolism enhances muscle protein and lipid oxidation</article-title>. <source>Food Chem</source>. <volume>20</volume>:<fpage>101038</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fochx.2023.101038</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r23"><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&#x02013;2015: Palatability and shear force assessments of retail and foodservice beef</article-title>. <source>Meat Muscle Biol</source>. <volume>1</volume>:<fpage>138</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb2017.05.0028</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r24"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Mashima</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>Y.</given-names> <surname>Oka</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>T.</given-names> <surname>Gotoh</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>S.</given-names> <surname>Tomonaga</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>S.</given-names> <surname>Sawano</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M.</given-names> <surname>Nakamura</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R.</given-names> <surname>Tatsumi</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>W.</given-names> <surname>Mizunoya</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2019</year>. <article-title>Correlation between skeletal muscle fiber type and free amino acid levels in Japanese Black steers</article-title>. <source>Anim. Sci. J</source>. <volume>90</volume>:<fpage>604</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>609</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1111/asj.13185</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r25"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>McKillip</surname>, <given-names>K. V.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>A. K.</given-names> <surname>Wilfong</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. M.</given-names> <surname>Gonzalez</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>T. A.</given-names> <surname>Houser</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. A.</given-names> <surname>Unruh</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>E. A. E.</given-names> <surname>Boyle</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>T. G.</given-names> <surname>O&#x02019;Quinn</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2017</year>. <article-title>Sensory evaluation of enhanced beef strip loin steaks cooked to 3 degrees of doneness</article-title>. <source>Meat Muscle Biol</source>. <fpage>1</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb2017.06.0033</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r26"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Muela</surname>, <given-names>E.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>P.</given-names> <surname>Monge</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>C.</given-names> <surname>Sa&#x000F1;udo</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. M.</given-names> <surname>Campo</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>J. A.</given-names> <surname>Beltr&#x000E1;n</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2015</year>. <article-title>Meat quality of lamb frozen stored up to 21 months: Instrumental analyses on thawed meat during display</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>102</volume>:<fpage>35</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>40</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.12.003</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r27"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Page</surname>, <given-names>J. K.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D. M.</given-names> <surname>Wulf</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>T. R.</given-names> <surname>Schwotzer</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2001</year>. <article-title>A survey of beef muscle color and pH</article-title>. <source>J. Anim. Sci</source>. <volume>79</volume>:<fpage>678</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.2527/2001.793678x</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r28"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Purslow</surname>, <given-names>P. P.</given-names></string-name></person-group> <year>2005</year>. <article-title>Intramuscular connective tissue and its role in meat quality</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>70</volume>:<fpage>435</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>447</lpage>.<pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2004.06.028</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r29"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Qi</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>C.</given-names> <surname>Li</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>Y.</given-names> <surname>Chen</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>F.</given-names> <surname>Gao</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>X.</given-names> <surname>Xu</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>G.</given-names> <surname>Zhou</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2012</year>. <article-title>Changes in meat quality of ovine longissimus dorsi muscle in response to repeated freeze and thaw</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>92</volume>:<fpage>619</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>626</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.06.009</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r30"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Raheli&#x00107;</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>S.</given-names> <surname>Pua&#x0010D;</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>A. H.</given-names> <surname>Gawwad</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>1985</year>. <article-title>Structure of beef Longissimus dorsi muscle frozen at various temperatures: Part 1&#x02014;histological changes in muscle frozen at &#x02212;10, &#x02212;22, &#x02212;33, &#x02212;78, &#x02212;115 and &#x02212;196&#x000B0;C</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>14</volume>:<fpage>63</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>72</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/0309-1740(85)90082-8</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r31"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Rahman</surname>, <given-names>M. H.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. M.</given-names> <surname>Hossain</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>S. M. E.</given-names> <surname>Rahman</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. R.</given-names> <surname>Amin</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>D.-H.</given-names> <surname>Oh</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2015</year>. <article-title>Evaluation of physicochemical deterioration and lipid oxidation of beef muscle affected by freeze-thaw cycles</article-title>. <source>Korean J. Food Sci. An</source>. <volume>35</volume>:<fpage>772</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>782</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2015.35.6.772</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r32"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ramanathan</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. C.</given-names> <surname>Hunt</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R. A.</given-names> <surname>Mancini</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M.</given-names> <surname>Nair</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. L.</given-names> <surname>Denzer</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>S. P.</given-names> <surname>Suman</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>G. G.</given-names> <surname>Mafi</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2020</year>. <article-title>Recent updates in meat color research: Integrating traditional and high-throughput approaches</article-title>. <source>Meat Muscle Biol</source>. <volume>4</volume>:<fpage>1</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>24</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb.9598</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r33"><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="r34"><mixed-citation publication-type="other"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Roerink</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> <year>2021</year>. The Power of Meat 2021. FMI and Foundation for Meat &#x00026; Poultry Education &#x00026; Research. (Accessed May 28, 2025.) <ext-link id="uri" xlink:href="https://orcattle.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/20210322-Power-of-Meat-infographic.pdf">https://orcattle.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/20210322-Power-of-Meat-infographic.pdf</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r35"><mixed-citation publication-type="other"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Roerink</surname>, <given-names>A.</given-names></string-name></person-group> <year>2023</year>. The Power of Meat 2023. FMI and Foundation for Meat &#x00026; Poultry Education &#x00026; Research. (Accessed May 28, 2025.) <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://www.fmi.org/docs/default-source/research/power_of_meat_2023_top_10_final.pdf?sfvrsn=df723499_1">https://www.fmi.org/docs/default-source/research/power_of_meat_2023_top_10_final.pdf?sfvrsn=df723499_1</ext-link></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r36"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Setyabrata</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>Y. H. B.</given-names> <surname>Kim</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2019</year>. <article-title>Impacts of aging/freezing sequence on microstructure, protein degradation and physico-chemical properties of beef muscles</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>151</volume>:<fpage>64</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>74</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.01.007</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r37"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Setyabrata</surname>, <given-names>D.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. R.</given-names> <surname>Tuell</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>Y. H. B.</given-names> <surname>Kim</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2019</year>. <article-title>The effect of aging/freezing sequence and freezing rate on quality attributes of beef loins (M. longissimus lumborum). Meat</article-title> <source>Muscle Biol</source>. <fpage>3</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb.11234</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r38"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Stafford</surname>, <given-names>C. D.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. J.</given-names> <surname>Taylor</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D. S.</given-names> <surname>Dang</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. A.</given-names> <surname>Alruzzi</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>K. J.</given-names> <surname>Thornton</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>S. K.</given-names> <surname>Matarneh</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2024</year>. <article-title>Freezing promotes postmortem proteolysis in beef by accelerating the activation of endogenous proteolytic systems</article-title>. <source>Meat Muscle Biol</source>. <fpage>8</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb.17760</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r39"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Tuell</surname>, <given-names>J. R.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J.-K.</given-names> <surname>Seo</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>Y. H. B.</given-names> <surname>Kim</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2020</year>. <article-title>Combined impacts of initial freezing rate of pork leg muscles (M. biceps femoris and M. semitendinosus) and subsequent freezing on quality characteristics of pork patties</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>170</volume>:<fpage>108248</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2020.108248</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r40"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Vaskoska</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M.</given-names> <surname>Ha</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>Z. B.</given-names> <surname>Naqvi</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. D.</given-names> <surname>White</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>R. D.</given-names> <surname>Warner</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2020</year>. <article-title>Muscle, ageing and temperature influence the changes in texture, cooking loss and shrinkage of cooked beef</article-title>. <source>Foods</source>. <volume>9</volume>:<fpage>1289</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9091289</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r41"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Wang</surname>, <given-names>Z.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>Z.</given-names> <surname>He</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D.</given-names> <surname>Zhang</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>X.</given-names> <surname>Chen</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>H.</given-names> <surname>Li</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2021</year>. <article-title>Effect of multiple freeze-thaw cycles on protein and lipid oxidation in rabbit meat</article-title>. <source>International J. Food Sci. Tech</source>. <volume>56</volume>:<fpage>3004</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>3015</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1111/ijfs.14943</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r42"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Xia</surname>, <given-names>X.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>B.</given-names> <surname>Kong</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>Q.</given-names> <surname>Liu</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>J.</given-names> <surname>Liu</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2009</year>. <article-title>Physicochemical change and protein oxidation in porcine longissimus dorsi as influenced by different freeze&#x02013;thaw cycles</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>83</volume>:<fpage>239</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>245</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.05.003</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref></ref-list><app-group><app id="app1"><title>Supplementary Table and Figure</title><p><table-wrap id="tab4"><label>Supplementary Table 1.</label><caption><p>Demographic characteristics of consumers (n&#x02009;=&#x02009;120) participated in the consumer sensory panels</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><colgroup><col align="left"/><col align="center"/><col align="char" char="."/></colgroup><thead><tr><th>Demographic Questions</th><th align="center">Response options</th><th>Frequency (%)</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td rowspan="2"><italic>Gender</italic></td><td>Male</td><td>34.4</td></tr><tr><td>Female</td><td>65.6</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7"><italic>Household Size</italic></td><td>1 person</td><td>14.4</td></tr><tr><td>2 people</td><td>22.8</td></tr><tr><td>3 people</td><td>21.7</td></tr><tr><td>4 people</td><td>24.4</td></tr><tr><td>5 people</td><td>8.9</td></tr><tr><td>6 people</td><td>5.0</td></tr><tr><td>&#x0003E; 6 people</td><td>2.8</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="2"><italic>Marital Status</italic></td><td>Single</td><td>55.0</td></tr><tr><td>Married</td><td>45.0</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="6"><italic>Age</italic></td><td>&#x0003C;20&#x000A0;years old</td><td>11.1</td></tr><tr><td>20-29&#x000A0;years old</td><td>34.4</td></tr><tr><td>20-39&#x000A0;years old</td><td>15.6</td></tr><tr><td>40-49&#x000A0;years old</td><td>15.0</td></tr><tr><td>50-59&#x000A0;years old</td><td>15.6</td></tr><tr><td>&#x0003E;60&#x000A0;years old</td><td>8.3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7"><italic>Ethnic Origin</italic></td><td>African-American</td><td>3.9</td></tr><tr><td>Asian</td><td>3.9</td></tr><tr><td>Caucasian</td><td>48.9</td></tr><tr><td>Hispanic</td><td>36.7</td></tr><tr><td>Native American</td><td>3.3</td></tr><tr><td>Mixed Race</td><td>1.7</td></tr><tr><td>Other</td><td>1.7</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="8"><italic>Annual Household Income</italic></td><td>&#x0003C; $25,000</td><td>20.0</td></tr><tr><td>$25,000-$34,000</td><td>5.6</td></tr><tr><td>$35,000-$49.999</td><td>9.4</td></tr><tr><td>$50,000-$74,000</td><td>21.1</td></tr><tr><td>$75,000-$99,000</td><td>15.6</td></tr><tr><td>$100,000-$149,000</td><td>19.4</td></tr><tr><td>$150,000-$199,999</td><td>5.6</td></tr><tr><td>&#x0003E;$199,999</td><td>3.3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5"><italic>Highest Level of Education Completed</italic></td><td>Non-High School Graduate</td><td>3.9</td></tr><tr><td>High School Graduate</td><td>17.2</td></tr><tr><td>Some College/Technical School</td><td>32.8</td></tr><tr><td>College Graduate</td><td>27.8</td></tr><tr><td>Post-College Graduate</td><td>18.3</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3"><italic>When eating beef, what palatability trait is the most important to you?</italic></td><td>Flavor</td><td>51.7</td></tr><tr><td>Juiciness</td><td>20.6</td></tr><tr><td>Tenderness</td><td>27.8</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="7"><italic>When eating beef steaks, what degree of doneness do you prefer?</italic></td><td>Very Rare</td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>Rare</td><td>4.4</td></tr><tr><td>Medium-Rare</td><td>37.8</td></tr><tr><td>Medium</td><td>30.0</td></tr><tr><td>Medium-Well</td><td>16.7</td></tr><tr><td>Well-Done</td><td>7.8</td></tr><tr><td>Very Well-Done</td><td>2.2</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="5"><italic>How many times per week do you consume beef?</italic></td><td>0 Times/Week</td><td>1.1</td></tr><tr><td>1-5 Times/week</td><td>81.1</td></tr><tr><td>6-10 Times/Week</td><td>11.7</td></tr><tr><td>11-15 Times/Week</td><td>4.5</td></tr><tr><td>&#x0003E;16&#x000A0;Times/Week</td><td>1.7</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><fig id="f6"><label>Supplementary Figure 1.</label><caption><p>Temperature decline rate during second freezing using different freezer types for <italic>Longissimus lumborum</italic> (LL, A), <italic>Gluteus medius</italic> (GM, B), and <italic>Semitendinosus</italic> (ST, C) with different freezing size. Freezing size treatments: SEC (Section freezing), STK (Steak freezing). Freezer type treatments: BLS (Blast freezer), CST (Chest freezer), FRI (Refrigerator freezer)</p></caption><graphic xlink:href="6.png"/></fig></p></app></app-group></back></article><?Pub *0000119563?>