<?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.19039</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>Supplementing Finishing Cattle With Garlic-Citrus Extract Affects Palatability Attributes of Beef Steaks and Patties</article-title><alt-title alt-title-type="right-running">Eckhardt et al.&#x02003;&#x02003;&#x02003;&#x02003;&#x02003;&#x02003;Garlic-citrus extract and beef palatability</alt-title></title-group><contrib-group><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Eckhardt</surname><given-names>Megan E.</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Hernandez</surname><given-names>M. S.</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Legako</surname><given-names>J. F.</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff2"><sup>2</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author"><name><surname>Lawrence</surname><given-names>Ty E.</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref></contrib><contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes"><name><surname>Lucherk</surname><given-names>Loni W.</given-names></name><xref ref-type="aff" rid="aff1"><sup>1</sup></xref><xref ref-type="corresp" rid="cor1"><sup>*</sup></xref></contrib><aff id="aff1"><label><sup>1</sup></label>Department of Agricultural Sciences, <institution>West Texas A&#x00026;M University</institution>, Canyon, TX 79016, <country>USA</country></aff><aff id="aff2"><label><sup>2</sup></label>Department of Animal &#x00026; Food Sciences, <institution>Texas Tech University</institution>, Lubbock, TX 79409, <country>USA</country></aff></contrib-group><author-notes><corresp id="cor1"><label><sup>*</sup></label>Corresponding author. Email: <email>llucherk@wtamu.edu</email> (Loni W. Lucherk)</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>16</lpage><history><date date-type="received"><day>11</day><month>02</month><year>2025</year></date><date date-type="accepted"><day>17</day><month>06</month><year>2025</year></date></history><permissions><copyright-statement>&#x000A9; 2025 Eckhardt, Hernandez, Legako, Lawrence, Lucherk.</copyright-statement><copyright-year>2025</copyright-year><copyright-holder>&#x000A9; 2025 Eckhardt, Hernandez, Legako, Lawrence, Lucherk.</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>Supplementation with garlic-citrus extract (GCE) promotes the reduction of enteric methane emissions in ruminants. Limited information exists regarding the effect of feeding GCE on beef palatability. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of finishing cattle with a GCE feed additive on retail color, palatability, volatile compounds, and fatty acid profiles of beef steaks and patties. Cattle (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;19) were supplemented with 0 (CON) or 27g/d GCE for 9 or 12 mos (9MO; 12MO). Treatments enlisted 5 head per each diet and duration-fed combination (except only 4 hd within CON-12MO). From each animal, strip loin steaks were retained; clods and outside rounds were ground and mixed to generate patties. Consumers (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;100) evaluated steaks and patties for palatability traits, acceptability, and eating quality. Trained panelists evaluated each sample for 13 beef flavor lexicon attributes and garlic intensity. Volatiles and fatty acid profiles were quantified. Data were analyzed via mixed models using a 2&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;2 treatment structure; treatment comparisons were tested using &#x003B1;&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.05. Diet and duration-fed interactive effects existed (patties: off-flavor intensity, premium quality level, oxidized, &#x003B1;-linolenic and eicosadienoic fatty acids [FA]; steaks: total percent polyunsaturated FA; <italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02264;&#x02009;0.039), suggesting duration of GCE supplementation impacts beef palatability attributes. Of particular note, trained panelists detected greater (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.013) garlic intensity among GCE steaks and a tendency (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.064) among GCE patties, especially when fed for a longer duration (12MO). Differences existed among descriptive panel attributes, volatile analysis, and fatty acid profiles for diet and duration-fed. Results indicate cattle finished with GCE supplementation produce similar biochemical composition of steaks and patties when compared to a CON diet, though differences in prevalence of off-flavors and perceived overall liking, as well as garlic flavor in beef from GCE-fed cattle, suggest GCE supplementation may impact beef sensory attributes.</p></abstract><kwd-group><title>Key words:</title><kwd>beef</kwd><kwd>flavor</kwd><kwd>garlic</kwd><kwd>fatty acids</kwd><kwd>volatile compounds</kwd></kwd-group></article-meta></front><body><sec id="sec1"><title>Introduction</title><p>Consumers select beef primarily based on perceived palatability expectations (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r22">O&#x02019;Quinn et&#x000A0;al., 2018</xref>). Beef palatability is known to include 3 factors: tenderness, juiciness, and flavor. The components of palatability work both positively and negatively in synergy. When all 3, tenderness, juiciness, and flavor, are represented favorably within a meat product, consumer acceptability is suggested to be much higher, whereas if even one of the 3 components of palatability are lacking, the respective product will likely be deemed unacceptable by consumers (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r7">Corbin et&#x000A0;al., 2015</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r22">O&#x02019;Quinn et&#x000A0;al., 2018</xref>). Many ante- and postmortem factors have been studied to evaluate the vast extrinsic determinants of beef palatability. A well-known contributor includes animal diet and the varying components or supplements of the diet that may then result in biochemical changes in meat products, i.e.,&#x000A0;proximate chemical analyses, volatile compounds, fatty acids profiles, etc. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r19">Miller, 2020</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r9">Ding et&#x000A0;al., 2023</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r23">O&#x02019;Quinn et&#x000A0;al., 2024</xref>). Previous research has evaluated the detectability of garlic aroma and/or flavor in red meat when fed garlic or garlic components as a means to mask other meat off-flavors, increase feed palatability and intake of animals, or improve performance and meat quality (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r8">Chu et&#x000A0;al., 2003</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r11">Fraser et&#x000A0;al., 2007</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r15">Janz et&#x000A0;al., 2007</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r17">Leong et&#x000A0;al., 2010</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r25">Redoy et&#x000A0;al., 2020</xref>). Garlic-containing products are rich in sulfur compounds, providing multiple antimicrobial, biological, and nutritional benefits to the ruminant diet (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r28">Shankaranarayana et&#x000A0;al., 1975</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r9">Ding et&#x000A0;al., 2023</xref>). Via ruminal digestion of plant components, garlic supplementation is suggested to alter protein and fatty acid composition, which promotes biochemical transformations in meat products, including meat color and biochemical profiles (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r19">Miller, 2020</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r9">Ding et&#x000A0;al., 2023</xref>). Specifically, an influx of sulfur-containing volatile compounds as well as a shift toward greater unsaturated fat production (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r28">Shankaranarayana et&#x000A0;al., 1975</xref>). Previous research indicated that meat color is impacted by garlic (or similar compounds) within the diet, varying from no difference in brightness (<italic>L</italic>*) and redness (<italic>a</italic>*) to the production of brighter and redder meat products (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r15">Janz et&#x000A0;al., 2007</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r6">Choi et&#x000A0;al., 2010</xref>). The genesis of the current study comes from the lack of clarity in research assessing the beef palatability and quality components impacted by feeding a garlic-citrus extract (GCE) supplement aiming to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in beef cattle. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the retail color, biochemical composition, and sensory effects of beef products from cattle finished with a GCE supplement, specifically on consumer and descriptive palatability, volatile compounds, fatty acid profiles, as well as retail case life performance of steaks and patties.</p></sec><sec id="sec2"><title>Materials and Methods</title><sec id="sec2.1"><title>Experimental treatments and sample preparation</title><p>Akaushi-cross cattle (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;20) were fed standard finisher diets that either included a 27g/d GCE top dress (proprietary supplement; Mootral SA, Rolle, Switzerland) or did not (CON), and fed for either 9 or 12 mos (9MO; 12MO) at the West Texas A&#x00026;M University Research Feedlot 12.87&#x000A0;km east of Canyon, TX. Because this was not an animal performance study, cattle of similar diets (GCE or CON) were fed in groups. The individual animal was considered the experimental unit, from which the subprimals for steaks and patties were derived. At the end of each feeding duration, cattle were harvested (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;19) at the West Texas A&#x00026;M University Meat Laboratory (Est. 7124) in Canyon, Texas. One animal (CON diet; 12MO duration-fed) was removed from the study before the harvest date due to illness. Carcasses were fabricated into strip loins from one side (left) of each carcass (Institutional Meat Purchase Specification (IMPS) #180; USDA, 2014; mean marbling score&#x02009;=&#x02009;514 [USDA Moderate]; <italic>n</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;19; 4&#x02013;5 per treatment combinations), and clods and outside rounds (IMPS #114 and #171B, respectively; USDA, 2014) constituted ground patty samples (mean&#x02009;=&#x02009;11.98% fat), a common commercial practice for formulating fresh ground beef as described by Gredell et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r13">2018</xref>).</p><p>Strip loins were held at 2&#x02013;4&#x000B0;C and aged 14 d before slicing (Treif, Model Lion F, Shelton, CT, USA) into six 2.54-cm-thick steaks. Steaks were fabricated and allocated for analysis in order from anterior to posterior (wedge&#x02009;=&#x02009;proximate and fatty acid analysis; followed by one steak for color analysis, the next for slice shear force (SSF) and volatile analysis, 2 steaks for consumer panel evaluation, and the last 2 steaks for descriptive trained sensory. Steaks were individually identified, vacuum packaged, and stored frozen (&#x02212;20&#x000B0;C) until subsequent analysis, with the exception of the steak designated for color analysis. Vacuum packaged steaks from each strip loin used for color assessment were transported to Lubbock, TX, overwrapped (oxygen-permeable polyvinyl chloride fresh meat film; 15,500 to 16,275&#x000A0;cm<sup>3</sup> O<sub>2</sub> m<sup>&#x02212;2</sup> 24&#x000A0;h<sup>&#x02212;1</sup> at 23&#x000B0;C, E-Z Wrap Crystal Clear Polyvinyl Chloride Wrapping Film, Koch Supplies, Kansas City, MO, USA), and placed in a retail display with continuous fluorescent lighting, conditions comparable with Dobbins et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r10">2024</xref>), within 48&#x000A0;h. The most anterior &#x0201C;wedge&#x0201D; steak from the anterior end of the strip loin was used for proximate analysis. Steaks that were frozen until further analysis were transported to Texas Tech University and thawed for 24&#x000A0;h at 2&#x02013;4&#x000B0;C for consumer, sensory, tenderness, proximate, fatty acid, and volatile analysis.</p><p>No subprimals (clods and outside rounds) were frozen before blending and grinding for ground patty formation. At day 15 postmortem, beef subprimals were trimmed of excessive fat and were cut into cubes less than or equal to 12.9&#x000A0;cm<sup>2</sup> for grinding, adapted from methods of Gredell et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r13">2018</xref>). Each batch was ground and blended using a mixer-grinder (Thompson Meat Machinery, Model 840-M2-1, Crestmead, QLD, Australia) equipped with a coarse grinding plate (1.27&#x000A0;cm). Following mixing, batches were ground a second time using the same grinder equipped with a fine grinding plate (3.175&#x000A0;mm). Each batch was then formed into 151-g patties (Patty-O-Matic Inc., Model 330A, Farmingdale, NJ, USA). Each patty was individually identified, vacuum packaged, and stored frozen (&#x02212;20&#x000B0;C) until subsequent analysis, except for the patties destined for color analysis. Fresh patties from each carcass used for color assessment were vacuum packaged, transported to Lubbock, TX, overwrapped, and placed in a retail display within 24&#x000A0;h. Frozen patties were transported to Texas Tech University for consumer, sensory, tenderness, proximate, fatty acid, and volatile analysis.</p></sec><sec id="sec2.2"><title>Instrumental retail color evaluation</title><p>One steak and one patty sample from each diet&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;duration combination designated for retail color display were removed from their vacuum package at Texas Tech University and individually placed on black expanded polystyrene trays and overwrapped with polyvinyl chloride film using a Minipack-torre, Minispenser (Dalmine, Italy). Steaks and patties were placed under continuous fluorescent lighting in 2 coffin-style cases (M1-GEA, Hussmann, Birdgeton, MO, USA) at temperatures of 2 to 4&#x000B0;C for 0&#x02013;7 d (steaks) and 0&#x02013;5 d (patties), respectively. Retail color evaluation parameters and perceptible color calculations were determined in reference to the <italic>Display Guidelines for Meat Color Research</italic> in the American Meat Science Association Guidelines for Meat Color Measurements (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r16">King et&#x000A0;al., 2023</xref>). Samples were allowed 30&#x000A0;min of bloom time before day 0 measurement. Packages were randomly rotated between rows every 24&#x000A0;h within their original cases. The <italic>L</italic>*, <italic>a</italic>*, and <italic>b</italic>* values were determined at 3 locations per steak or patty and averaged every 24&#x000A0;h during display, using a Hunter MiniScan EZ 4500 (Hunter Associates Laboratory, Inc. Reston, VA, USA) using illuminant A with a 10&#x000B0; observer angle and a 45&#x000B0;/0&#x000B0; directional viewing geometry, 31.8-mm port, and 25-mm viewed area.</p></sec><sec id="sec2.3"><title>Trained color evaluation</title><p>Trained color evaluators, consisting of Texas Tech University Department of Animal and Food Sciences personnel, participated in evaluating samples for percentage discoloration utilizing the American Meat Science Association Guidelines for Meat Color Measurements (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r16">King et&#x000A0;al., 2023</xref>). Panelists were screened based on normal acuity and ability to discriminate color differences using the Farnsworth-Munsell 100-Hue test. Successful panelists demonstrated scores of 50 or less as per the guidelines of AMSA (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r16">King et&#x000A0;al., 2023</xref>). Panelists were further trained and tested on samples for approximately 14&#x000A0;h to objectively evaluate samples using AMSA&#x02019;s scale for meat display color stability of whole muscle and surface discoloration as reference. Ballots were provided to panelists via electronic tablets (iPad, Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA, USA) using electronic surveys (Qualtrics, Provo, UT, USA). Color was evaluated when steaks were placed in the case (0&#x000A0;d&#x02009;=&#x02009;allowed 30&#x000A0;min bloom) and subsequently every 24&#x000A0;h for not more than 7 d. Panelists were asked to evaluate samples every 24&#x000A0;h (&#x000B1; 1&#x000A0;h) for the entirety of the display period. At each evaluation time point, 6 panelists evaluated the predominant lean color (at least 12.9&#x000A0;cm<sup>2</sup> of contiguous lean) of each steak for percentage lean discoloration, on an anchored, continuous 100-point line scale, with &#x0201C;0&#x0201D; representing no discoloration, and &#x0201C;100&#x0201D; representing completely discolored samples. Responses were averaged between panelists for each sample.</p></sec><sec id="sec2.4"><title>Proximate analysis</title><p>Steaks and patties for proximate analysis were thawed for 24&#x000A0;h at 2&#x000B0;C to 4&#x000B0;C. Steaks were trimmed of external fat and connective tissue, cut into 2.54&#x000A0;cm&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;2.54&#x000A0;cm pieces, and ground through a 4-mm plate (#12 2/3&#x000A0;HP Electric Meat Grinder, Model: MG-204182-13, Gander Mountain, Saint Paul, MN, USA). Proximate analysis of raw steaks was conducted according to AOAC Official Method 2007.04 (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r3">Anderson, 2007</xref>) using a near-infrared spectrophotometer (FoodScan, FOSS NIR systems, Inc., Laurel, MD, USA). Percentages of collagen, fat, moisture, and protein were determined for each strip loin steak and patty.</p></sec><sec id="sec2.5"><title>Cooked sample preparation</title><p>Before cooking, samples were thawed at 2&#x000B0;C to 4&#x000B0;C for 24&#x000A0;h, and steaks were trimmed to remove external fat. Cooked sample preparation and respective analyses were completed in accordance with the AMSA Sensory Guidelines (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r2">AMSA, 2016</xref>). No cooking traits, beyond peak internal temperature, were obtained for analysis. Groups of steaks or patties (6 per sensory analysis or shear force analysis; groups of steaks and patties, cooked independently) were singly layered and cooked on a centrally located grill grate in a combi-oven (Model SCC WE 61 E; Rational, Landberg am Lech, Germany); individual steak/patty temperature was monitored during the cooking process using the built-in combi-oven thermocouple (3mm thick probe) placed in the geometric center of one centrally located sample. Samples were removed from the oven to target a peak internal temperature of 71&#x000B0;C for steaks and 77&#x000B0;C for patties. Immediately following cooking, samples were allowed to rest before recording a peak internal temperature using a calibrated type K thermocouple thermometer (AccuTuff 340, model 34040, Cooper-Atkins Corporation, Middlefield, CT, USA) placed in the geometric center of each sample. Before consumer, sensory, and tenderness evaluation, cooked steaks were trimmed of any remaining external fat and connective tissue.</p></sec><sec id="sec2.6"><title>Consumer panel evaluation</title><p>The West Texas A&#x00026;M University institutional review board approved procedures for the use of human subjects for consumer sensory evaluation (#2022.04.019). Consumer panelists (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;100) were recruited by email list and paid for their participation in Lubbock, Texas. Consumers were recruited based on the criteria that they were beef consumers at least once per week and were at least 18&#x000A0;years of age. Five panel sessions were conducted with 20 consumers seated in individual sensory booths/areas for approximately 1&#x000A0;h duration. After cooking, the panel steaks were then portioned into 1.27-cm&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;1.27-cm pieces each, whereas patties were cut into 8 wedge-shaped pieces, and each of the portions was immediately served in a random order to consumers on a Styrofoam plate. Consumers were served 8 samples (4 steaks and 4 patties) immediately post-cooking in a predetermined, random order, approximately 6&#x000A0;min apart. Each consumer evaluated the steak samples first, then the patty samples, one from each treatment. Panelists were provided with a ballot, plastic fork and knife, toothpick, napkin, expectorant cup, cup of water, palate cleansers (unsalted crackers), and palate refresher (diluted sugar-free apple juice: 90% water and 10% sugar-free apple juice) to use between samples.</p><p>Each ballot was provided electronically on individual tablets (Qualtrics Surveys, Provo, UT, USA; iPad, Apple Inc., Cupertino, CA, USA) and contained an information sheet, demographic questionnaire, beef steak purchasing behavior sheet, and 8 sample ballots. Before the start of each panel, panelists were given verbal instructions about the ballot and the use of the palate cleansers/refreshers. No consumer was sitting next to another consumer sampling the same sample.</p><p>Attributes for all 8 samples were ranked on an electronic ballot with unstructured, numeric line scales (0&#x02013;100) for juiciness, tenderness, flavor liking, off-flavor intensity, and overall liking. The &#x0201C;0&#x0201D; anchors were labelled as not juicy, not tender, dislike extremely, no off-flavor, and dislike extremely, whereas the &#x0201C;100&#x0201D; anchors were labelled as very juicy, very tender, like extremely, extreme off-flavor, and like extremely. Also, each consumer rated each sample as either acceptable or unacceptable (yes/no) for each palatability trait. Finally, consumers were asked to designate each sample as unsatisfactory, everyday quality, better than everyday quality, or premium quality.</p></sec><sec id="sec2.7"><title>Descriptive trained sensory analysis</title><p>Sensory analysis was conducted at Texas Tech University. Panelists were trained via methods described by Ponce et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r24">2019</xref>) to detect multiple beef flavor characteristics using the lexicon developed by Adhikari et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r1">2011</xref>) and objectively quantify the intensity of each attribute using an unstructured 100-point line scale. Samples designated for sensory analysis were randomly assigned to sensory sessions so that all treatments were represented in each panel. One panel session was conducted each day with 4 samples per session for a total of 10 panel sessions (5 steak sessions and 5 patty sessions). One sample representing each of the 4 treatments per panel session was served to 6 panelists. Before statistical analysis, panelist responses for each steak or patty were averaged.</p><p>Cooked steaks were trimmed of any remaining external fat and connective tissue, then portioned into six 1.27-cm&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;1.27-cm&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;2.54-cm cube-pieces each, whereas patties were cut into 6 wedge-shaped, equally sized portions and held at 50&#x02013;55&#x000B0;C in a warming box (Cambro Manufacturing, Huntington Beach, CA, USA) for no more than 15&#x000A0;min before being served to panelists. Samples were served under red incandescent light to mask color variation among samples during 30-min panel sessions. Panelists were supplied with distilled water, unsalted saltine crackers, and apple juice to cleanse and refresh their palates between samples. According to the beef flavor lexicon, panelists evaluated each sample for tenderness, juiciness, beef flavor identity, browned, roasted, fat-like, buttery, umami, metallic, oxidized, liver-like, sour, and bitter on an unstructured 100-point line scale (0&#x02009;=&#x02009;not present; 100&#x02009;=&#x02009;very intense). Additionally, panelists collaborated and defined a garlic intensity attribute (0&#x02009;=&#x02009;not present; 100&#x02009;=&#x02009;roasted garlic). Upon discovery of novel sensory attribute (garlic intensity; not previously defined in <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r1">Adhikari et&#x000A0;al., 2011</xref>), group collaboration among trained panelists, a single panel value was produced. For all other traits, after each panel session, individual panelist ratings were averaged to obtain a single panel rating for each sensory attribute of each sample.</p></sec><sec id="sec2.8"><title>SSF</title><p>Samples designated for SSF were thawed and cooked as previously described. Tenderness was evaluated by SSF as described by Shackelford et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r27">1999</xref>). In brief, following the endpoint temperature reading, a 1&#x02013;2&#x000A0;cm slice was removed across the width of the steak from the lateral end to square off the steak and expose the muscle fibers. Using a cutting guide, a 5-cm long&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;1-cm thick section was obtained from the lateral end by cutting at a 45&#x000B0; angle, parallel to the muscle fiber orientation. The sample was center sheared perpendicular to the muscle fiber using a G-R Shear Machine (Model GR-152 [Slice Shear Machine], G-R Electric Manufacturing Company LLC, Manhattan, KS, USA) equipped with a load cell of 50&#x000A0;kg operating at a cross-head speed of 500&#x000A0;mm/min.</p></sec><sec id="sec2.9"><title>Fatty acid analysis</title><p>For the determination of fatty acids, total lipid was extracted using the methods of O&#x02019;Fallon (2007) from 1&#x000A0;g of homogenized raw sample. Samples were flash frozen using liquid nitrogen and transferred to a blender (NutriBullet LEAN, Pacoima, CA, USA) to produce a fine-ground, homogenous powder. Samples were stored in an individual bag at &#x02212;80&#x000B0;C until further analysis. Vials were stored at &#x02212;80&#x000B0;C until fatty acid methyl extraction (FAME) separation and quantification with gas chromatography (GC). From an injection of 1&#x000A0;&#x003BC;L of sample at a 50:1 split ratio with hydrogen as a carrier gas (2.4&#x000A0;mL/min), FAME were separated on an HP-88 capillary column (100&#x000A0;m&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;250&#x000A0;&#x003BC;m&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;0.2&#x000A0;&#x003BC;m; Agilent Technologies) using a GC system equipped with a flame ionization detector (Agilent Technologies 7890A). For each sample, oven temperature remained 35&#x000B0;C for 2&#x000A0;min, then increased 4&#x000B0;C/min to 170&#x000B0;C and remained at 170&#x000B0;C for 4&#x000A0;min, and then increased 3.5&#x000B0;C/min and remained at 240&#x000B0;C for 2&#x000A0;min. The injector and detector were operated at 250&#x000B0;C. Fatty acids were identified based on similarity of their retention times with reference standards (Nu-Chek Prep, GLC 463). Fatty acid concentrations were calculated relative to initial wet sample weight (mg/g) and expressed as a percentage of the total lipid fraction in the sample. The total percentage of saturated (SFA), monounsaturated (MUFA), and polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) was calculated for each sample.</p></sec><sec id="sec2.10"><title>Volatile compound analysis</title><p>Volatile compounds were measured similarly to Gardner and Legako (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r12">2018</xref>) with modifications described in Hernandez (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r14">2022</xref>). One steak and patty from each treatment was thawed and cooked according to the methods previously described. Five grams of cooked, homogenized (as previously described), frozen sample were weighed into 20-mL glass vials. An internal standard solution (1,2-dichlorobenzene, 2.5&#x000A0;&#x003BC;g/&#x003BC;L) was dispensed in each sample. Vials were sealed and loaded into a &#x02212;20&#x000B0;C dry air-cooling block (MeCour Temperature Control, LLC, Groveland, MA, USA). A Gerstel autosampler (Multipurpose Sampler, Gerstel, Inc.) removed samples from the cooling block and placed them in a 65&#x000B0;C agitator for extraction. An 85&#x000A0;&#x003BC;m film thickness carboxen/polydimethylsiloxane fiber (Supelco Inc., Bellefonte, PA, USA) was exposed in the headspace of the vial for solid phase microextraction (SPME) of volatile compounds. Separation and detection of volatile flavor compounds were carried out using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS). After extraction, the SPME fiber was injected into the GC (7890B series, Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA) and desorbed onto a VF-5ms capillary column (30&#x000A0;m&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;0.25&#x000A0;mm&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;1&#x000A0;&#x003BC;m; Agilent J&#x00026;W GC columns, the Netherlands). Separated compounds were introduced to the single quadrupole mass spectrometer (5977A, Agilent, Santa Clara, CA, USA) through electron ionization at 70&#x000A0;eV. Mass range was determined at 45&#x02013;500&#x000A0;m/z. Authentic standards (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) were used to confirm compound identities through retention time and fragmentation pattern of 1 target ion and 2 qualifying ions. A calibration curve and the internal standard were used for absolute quantitation of volatile compounds (ng per g of sample).</p></sec><sec id="sec2.11"><title>Statistical analyses</title><p>Statistical analyses were conducted using the procedures of SAS (version 9.4; SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA) using &#x003B1;&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.05. Treatment comparisons were tested for significance using the GLIMMIX procedure. Fixed effects included diet (GCE or CON) and duration-fed (9MO or 12MO), utilizing a 2&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;2 factorial arrangement (GCE-9; GCE-12; CON-9; CON-12). Random effects included the animal, peak temperature in cooked sample analysis, and panel order designation for consumer and descriptive sensory. Proximate fat percentages were included in the model as a covariate, but only accounted for minimal variation and were therefore removed. Color data (instrumental and subjective) were analyzed as repeated measures using a compound symmetry covariance structure, and day of display was included as a fixed effect. Sensory panels were fed in a balanced complete block design with panel (5 consumers) as the block. For all analyses, the Kenward-Roger approximation was used for estimating denominator degrees of freedom, and the PDIFF option was used to separate treatment means when the F-test on the main effect or effect interaction was significant (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02264;&#x02009;0.05).</p></sec></sec><sec id="sec3"><title>Results and Discussion</title><sec id="sec3.1"><title>Instrumental and panelist retail color assessment</title><p>Instrumental and panelist discoloration assessments of uncooked ground beef patties are reported in <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab1">Table&#x000A0;1</xref>. No diet&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;day interaction occurred (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.106). For all other ground beef patty color assessments, a significant day effect occurred (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02264;&#x02009;0.042) for all attributes, except for 9MO-patty <italic>L</italic>* values (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.169). Values for 9MO-patties, <italic>a</italic>* and <italic>b</italic>* declined (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02264;&#x02009;0.011), whereas discoloration percentage increased (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.001) over time for 9MO-patties. Notably, upon transportation, 9MO-patties produced considerable discoloration (mean&#x02009;=&#x02009;33.36% discolored), abnormal for day-0 display. Regarding 12MO-patties, all instrumental color values declined (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02264;&#x02009;0.042) over time, whereas discoloration percentages increased (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.001).</p><table-wrap id="tab1"><label>Table 1.</label><caption><p>Least-squares means for instrumental<sup>1</sup> and panelist discoloration<sup>2</sup> assessment of uncooked patties by diet<sup>3</sup> and duration fed.</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><colgroup><col align="left" width="9*"/><col align="center" width="8*"/><col align="char" width="9*" char="."/><col align="center" width="9*"/><col align="char" width="9*" char="."/><col align="center" width="9*"/><col align="char" width="9*" char="."/><col align="char" width="9*" char="."/><col align="center" width="9*"/><col align="char" width="9*" char="."/><col align="char" width="9*" char="."/></colgroup><thead><tr><th/><th/><th colspan="5" align="center">Display days</th><th colspan="4" align="center"><italic>P</italic> value</th></tr><tr><th align="left">9 months</th><th align="center">Diet</th><th align="center">0</th><th align="center">1</th><th align="center">2</th><th align="center">3</th><th align="center">5</th><th align="center">SEM<sup>4</sup></th><th align="center">Diet</th><th align="center">Day</th><th align="center">Interaction</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>L</italic>* value</td><td>GCE</td><td>42.25</td><td>43.82</td><td>43.41</td><td>43.78</td><td>43.82</td><td rowspan="2">0.86</td><td rowspan="2">0.218</td><td rowspan="2">0.169</td><td rowspan="2">0.832</td></tr><tr><td/><td>CON</td><td>41.52</td><td>42.52</td><td>42.31</td><td>42.10</td><td>41.95</td></tr><tr><td><italic>a</italic>* value</td><td>GCE</td><td>23.47</td><td>18.02</td><td>16.37</td><td>15.09</td><td>11.75</td><td rowspan="2">1.23</td><td rowspan="2">0.619</td><td rowspan="2">&#x0003C; 0.001</td><td rowspan="2">0.931</td></tr><tr><td/><td>CON</td><td>23.97</td><td>19.15</td><td>16.93</td><td>14.84</td><td>13.05</td></tr><tr><td><italic>b</italic>* value</td><td>GCE</td><td>19.59</td><td>17.43</td><td>17.19</td><td>17.43</td><td>17.25</td><td rowspan="2">0.99</td><td rowspan="2">0.607</td><td rowspan="2">0.011</td><td rowspan="2">0.962</td></tr><tr><td/><td>CON</td><td>19.77</td><td>17.93</td><td>17.99</td><td>17.88</td><td>18.35</td></tr><tr><td>Discoloration</td><td>GCE</td><td>48.11</td><td>80.23</td><td>86.46</td><td>92.20</td><td>99.75</td><td rowspan="2">6.63</td><td rowspan="2">0.169</td><td rowspan="2">&#x0003C; 0.001</td><td rowspan="2">0.106</td></tr><tr><td/><td>CON</td><td>18.60</td><td>72.73</td><td>81.89</td><td>91.07</td><td>99.50</td></tr><tr><td colspan="11"><bold>12 months</bold></td></tr><tr><td><italic>L</italic>* value</td><td>GCE</td><td>42.43</td><td>41.13</td><td>39.46</td><td>40.46</td><td>40.73</td><td rowspan="2">1.63</td><td rowspan="2">0.218</td><td rowspan="2">0.042</td><td rowspan="2">0.717</td></tr><tr><td/><td>CON</td><td>44.91</td><td>42.36</td><td>42.52</td><td>43.02</td><td>44.29</td></tr><tr><td><italic>a</italic>* value</td><td>GCE</td><td>28.33</td><td>22.46</td><td>18.07</td><td>14.83</td><td>12.40</td><td rowspan="2">0.70</td><td rowspan="2">0.537</td><td rowspan="2">&#x0003C; 0.001</td><td rowspan="2">0.367</td></tr><tr><td/><td>CON</td><td>28.87</td><td>21.27</td><td>17.02</td><td>14.65</td><td>11.90</td></tr><tr><td><italic>b</italic>* value</td><td>GCE</td><td>20.58</td><td>18.35</td><td>18.14</td><td>17.72</td><td>18.25</td><td rowspan="2">0.54</td><td rowspan="2">0.933</td><td rowspan="2">&#x0003C; 0.001</td><td rowspan="2">0.496</td></tr><tr><td/><td>CON</td><td>21.44</td><td>17.82</td><td>18.05</td><td>17.97</td><td>17.98</td></tr><tr><td>Discoloration</td><td>GCE</td><td>0.00</td><td>13.28</td><td>57.96</td><td>90.00</td><td>99.91</td><td rowspan="2">4.27</td><td rowspan="2">0.262</td><td rowspan="2">&#x0003C; 0.001</td><td rowspan="2">0.398</td></tr><tr><td/><td>CON</td><td>0.00</td><td>18.31</td><td>70.05</td><td>95.60</td><td>99.96</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn><label><sup>1</sup></label><p>Instrumental color values&#x02009;=&#x02009;CIE <italic>L</italic>* (lightness), <italic>a</italic>* (redness), <italic>b</italic>* (yellowness).</p></fn><fn><label><sup>2</sup></label><p>Panelist discoloration: 0&#x02009;=&#x02009;no discoloration; 100&#x02009;=&#x02009;complete discoloration.</p></fn><fn><label><sup>3</sup></label><p>Diet&#x02009;=&#x02009;GCE (garlic-citrus extract); CON (control).</p></fn><fn><label><sup>4</sup></label><p>SEM (standard error of the mean)(largest) of the interactive least-squares means.</p></fn><fn><label><sup>a&#x02013;e</sup></label><p>Least-squares means within a specific color attribute without a common superscript differ (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05).</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><p>Instrumental and panelist discoloration assessments of uncooked steaks are reported in <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab2">Table&#x000A0;2</xref>. Interactions among the steak 9MO-diet treatments by day included instrumental <italic>L</italic>* values (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.008) in which, generally, GCE-9 steaks sustained higher brightness (<italic>L</italic>*) values through day 5 of display when compared with CON-9 steaks. Moreover, 9MO steaks declined in instrumental redness (<italic>a</italic>*) values over time (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.001) and differed (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.011) among diets. Within 9MO steaks, redness values were higher (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.011) for GCE-9 than CON-9 steaks.</p><table-wrap id="tab2"><label>Table 2.</label><caption><p>Least-squares means for instrumental<sup>1</sup> and panelist discoloration<sup>2</sup> assessment of uncooked steaks by diet<sup>3</sup> and duration fed.</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><colgroup><col align="left"/><col align="center"/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><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="."/></colgroup><thead><tr><th/><th/><th colspan="6" align="center">Display days</th><th colspan="4" align="center"><italic>P</italic> value</th></tr><tr><th align="left">9 months</th><th align="center">Diet</th><th align="center">0</th><th align="center">1</th><th align="center">2</th><th align="center">3</th><th align="center">5</th><th align="center">7</th><th align="center">SEM<sup>4</sup></th><th align="center">Diet</th><th align="center">Day</th><th align="center">Interaction</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><italic>L</italic>* value</td><td>GCE</td><td>42.16<sup>ab</sup></td><td>42.34<sup>ab</sup></td><td>41.77<sup>ab</sup></td><td>41.40<sup>abc</sup></td><td>40.52<sup>abc</sup></td><td>38.25<sup>d</sup></td><td rowspan="2">1.02</td><td rowspan="2">0.446</td><td rowspan="2">&#x0003C; 0.001</td><td rowspan="2">0.008</td></tr><tr><td/><td>CON</td><td>42.62<sup>a</sup></td><td>40.29<sup>bcd</sup></td><td>39.70<sup>bcd</sup></td><td>39.37<sup>bcd</sup></td><td>38.58<sup>cd</sup></td><td>40.16<sup>bcd</sup></td></tr><tr><td><italic>a</italic>* value</td><td>GCE</td><td>28.60</td><td>32.25</td><td>30.75</td><td>29.34</td><td>24.52</td><td>21.89</td><td rowspan="2">1.78</td><td rowspan="2">0.011</td><td rowspan="2">&#x0003C; 0.001</td><td rowspan="2">0.963</td></tr><tr><td/><td>CON</td><td>26.15</td><td>28.91</td><td>26.61</td><td>24.84</td><td>20.83</td><td>16.30</td></tr><tr><td><italic>b</italic>* value</td><td>GCE</td><td>23.25</td><td>25.62</td><td>24.52</td><td>23.58</td><td>20.93</td><td>19.97</td><td rowspan="2">1.04</td><td rowspan="2">0.027</td><td rowspan="2">&#x0003C; 0.001</td><td rowspan="2">0.984</td></tr><tr><td/><td>CON</td><td>21.29</td><td>23.81</td><td>21.89</td><td>20.60</td><td>18.71</td><td>17.22</td></tr><tr><td>Discoloration</td><td>GCE</td><td>0.71</td><td>1.07</td><td>1.54</td><td>2.70</td><td>18.40</td><td>46.30</td><td rowspan="2">8.73</td><td rowspan="2">0.515</td><td rowspan="2">&#x0003C; 0.001</td><td rowspan="2">0.895</td></tr><tr><td/><td>CON</td><td>6.97</td><td>5.43</td><td>7.34</td><td>12.40</td><td>28.65</td><td>39.30</td></tr><tr><td colspan="12"><bold>12 months</bold></td></tr><tr><td><italic>L</italic>* value</td><td>GCE</td><td>42.25</td><td>41.07</td><td>40.25</td><td>39.63</td><td>39.76</td><td>39.56</td><td rowspan="2">1.86</td><td rowspan="2">0.747</td><td rowspan="2">0.027</td><td rowspan="2">0.768</td></tr><tr><td/><td>CON</td><td>41.79</td><td>41.97</td><td>41.88</td><td>40.63</td><td>40.22</td><td>40.68</td></tr><tr><td><italic>a</italic>* value</td><td>GCE</td><td>27.88</td><td>32.79</td><td>28.87</td><td>25.52</td><td>20.06</td><td>14.36</td><td rowspan="2">1.90</td><td rowspan="2">0.850</td><td rowspan="2">&#x0003C; 0.001</td><td rowspan="2">0.954</td></tr><tr><td/><td>CON</td><td>28.44</td><td>32.34</td><td>29.08</td><td>26.82</td><td>21.17</td><td>14.18</td></tr><tr><td><italic>b</italic>* value</td><td>GCE</td><td>21.60</td><td>26.18</td><td>23.22</td><td>21.48</td><td>19.00</td><td>17.07</td><td rowspan="2">1.18</td><td rowspan="2">0.748</td><td rowspan="2">&#x0003C; 0.001</td><td rowspan="2">0.924</td></tr><tr><td/><td>CON</td><td>21.11</td><td>25.13</td><td>22.86</td><td>21.81</td><td>18.82</td><td>16.17</td></tr><tr><td>Discoloration</td><td>GCE</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.50</td><td>2.92</td><td>14.32</td><td>53.66</td><td>75.68</td><td rowspan="2">11.05</td><td rowspan="2">0.973</td><td rowspan="2">&#x0003C; 0.001</td><td rowspan="2">0.998</td></tr><tr><td/><td>CON</td><td>0.00</td><td>0.25</td><td>2.05</td><td>11.25</td><td>53.79</td><td>81.65</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn><label><sup>1</sup></label><p>Instrumental color values&#x02009;=&#x02009;CIE <italic>L</italic>* (lightness), <italic>a</italic>* (redness), <italic>b</italic>* (yellowness).</p></fn><fn><label><sup>2</sup></label><p>Panelist discoloration: 0&#x02009;=&#x02009;no discoloration; 100&#x02009;=&#x02009;complete discoloration.</p></fn><fn><label><sup>3</sup></label><p>Diet&#x02009;=&#x02009;GCE (garlic-citrus extract); CON (control).</p></fn><fn><label><sup>4</sup></label><p>SEM (standard error of the mean)(largest) of the interactive least-squares means.</p></fn><fn><label><sup>a&#x02013;e</sup></label><p>Least-squares means within a specific color attribute without a common superscript differ (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05).</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><p>A day effect (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02264;&#x02009;0.027) occurred for all remaining color assessments for both 9MO and 12MO steaks. Both <italic>a</italic>* and <italic>b</italic>* values declined (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.001) for 9MO steaks d 1 through the duration of retail display. Percentage discoloration for 9MO and 12MO steaks increased (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02264;&#x02009;0.010), most notably by days 5 and 7, respectively, and did not differ (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.173) from days 0 to 3 and days 0 to 5, respectively. Diet effects occurred for both <italic>a</italic>* and <italic>b</italic>* values of 9MO steaks, suggesting GCE steaks were redder and more yellow via instrumental values than CON steaks. All other remaining day effects were not significant (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.515).</p><p>Choi et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r6">2010</xref>) reported the impact of garlic powder inclusion in the diets of broilers; as garlic level increased, broiler thighs were lighter (<italic>L</italic>*), redder (<italic>a</italic>*), and more yellow (<italic>b</italic>*) in color. This similarly aligns with the findings of the current study among diet treatments for 9MO steaks, though the remainder of the observations (12MO and patties) dissimilarly suggest no difference in color attributes among diet treatments. Similar to the <italic>L</italic>* observations of the current study, Janz et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r15">2007</xref>) also reported no instrumental lightness differences among pork chops from pigs fed garlic versus a control diet. The antioxidant properties promoted by the inclusion of garlic or a garlic supplement in animal diets likely influence muscle metabolism, and consequently, affect the inherent oxidative stability and antioxidant capacity of fresh meat during retail display (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r15">Janz et&#x000A0;al., 2007</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r6">Choi et&#x000A0;al., 2010</xref>).</p></sec><sec id="sec3.2"><title>Objective tenderness and proximate analysis</title><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="tab3">Table&#x000A0;3</xref> includes the means for SSF of steaks and proximate analyses of both steaks and patties. No difference (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.303) existed for SSF or proximate analysis of steaks and patties among diet treatments, suggesting that feeding a GCE supplement will not impact tenderness or product composition. Overall, steaks qualified as <italic>Certified Very Tender</italic> based on the SSF values (less than 15.4&#x000A0;kg) indicated by ASTM International (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r5">2011</xref>). Mean SSF and percentage collagen of steaks, as well as percentage protein of patties, were not affected (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.196) by duration of feeding. A considerably higher (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02264;&#x02009;0.034) percentage of fat (20.88% versus 9.40%) and a lower (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02264;&#x02009;0.024) percentage of moisture were recorded for 9MO steaks and patties than 12MO samples. The percentage of collagen was detected at higher (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.032) values for 9MO patties than 12MO patties.</p><table-wrap id="tab3"><label>Table 3.</label><caption><p>Least-squares means for objective tenderness<sup>1</sup> and proximate analyses of steaks and patties by diet<sup>2</sup> and duration fed.<sup>3</sup></p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><colgroup><col align="left" width="8*"/><col align="char" width="8*" char="."/><col align="char" width="8*" char="."/><col align="char" width="8*" char="."/><col align="char" width="8*" char="."/><col align="char" width="8*" char="."/><col align="char" width="8*" char="."/><col align="char" width="8*" char="."/><col align="char" width="8*" char="."/><col align="char" width="8*" char="."/><col align="char" width="8*" char="."/></colgroup><thead><tr><th/><th colspan="4" align="center">Diet</th><th colspan="4" align="center">Duration fed</th><th colspan="2" align="center">Diet&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;Duration</th></tr><tr><th/><th align="center">GCE</th><th align="center">CON</th><th align="center">SEM<sup>4</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>P</italic> value</th><th align="center">9MO</th><th align="center">12MO</th><th align="center">SEM<sup>4</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>P</italic> value</th><th align="center">SEM<sup>4</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>P</italic> value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="11"><bold>Steaks</bold></td></tr><tr><td>SSF, kg</td><td>11.94</td><td>12.01</td><td>0.92</td><td>0.958</td><td>12.83</td><td>11.13</td><td>0.90</td><td>0.196</td><td>1.39</td><td>0.328</td></tr><tr><td>Fat, %</td><td>15.26</td><td>15.03</td><td>2.04</td><td>0.935</td><td>20.88</td><td>9.40</td><td>2.11</td><td>&#x0003C; 0.001</td><td>3.33</td><td>0.764</td></tr><tr><td>Moisture, %</td><td>64.03</td><td>64.00</td><td>1.50</td><td>0.990</td><td>59.43</td><td>68.60</td><td>1.54</td><td>&#x0003C; 0.001</td><td>2.44</td><td>0.622</td></tr><tr><td>Protein, %</td><td>20.58</td><td>20.73</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.840</td><td>19.20</td><td>22.11</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.002</td><td>0.93</td><td>0.892</td></tr><tr><td>Collagen, %</td><td>2.23</td><td>1.97</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.303</td><td>2.27</td><td>1.93</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.178</td><td>0.29</td><td>0.843</td></tr><tr><td colspan="11"><bold>Patties</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Fat, %</td><td>12.11</td><td>11.85</td><td>0.81</td><td>0.821</td><td>13.27</td><td>10.69</td><td>0.81</td><td>0.034</td><td>1.21</td><td>0.334</td></tr><tr><td>Moisture, %</td><td>66.62</td><td>66.27</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.671</td><td>65.42</td><td>67.47</td><td>0.59</td><td>0.024</td><td>0.89</td><td>0.660</td></tr><tr><td>Protein, %</td><td>20.28</td><td>20.33</td><td>0.33</td><td>0.897</td><td>20.14</td><td>20.47</td><td>0.33</td><td>0.466</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.163</td></tr><tr><td>Collagen, %</td><td>1.75</td><td>1.72</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.869</td><td>1.94</td><td>1.52</td><td>0.13</td><td>0.032</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.534</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn><label><sup>1</sup></label><p>Objective tenderness assessed via slice shear force (SSF; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r27">Shackelford et&#x000A0;al., 1999</xref>).</p></fn><fn><label><sup>2</sup></label><p>Diet&#x02009;=&#x02009;GCE (garlic-citrus extract); CON (control).</p></fn><fn><label><sup>3</sup></label><p>Duration fed&#x02009;=&#x02009;9MO (9 month); 12MO (12 month).</p></fn><fn><label><sup>4</sup></label><p>SEM (standard error of the mean)(largest) of the least-squares means.</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap></sec><sec id="sec3.3"><title>Consumer evaluation &#x00026; acceptability</title><p>Consumer demographics and consumption behavior information from the 100 consumers are reported in <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab4">Table&#x000A0;4</xref>. Diet and duration-fed interactions, as well as main effect means for consumer rating, acceptability, and perceived quality levels, are reported in <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab5">Tables&#x000A0;5</xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab6">6</xref> for patties and steaks, respectively. Consumers rated GCE-12 patties higher (12.68; <italic>P</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.020) for off-flavor intensity than GCE-9 (5.93); whereas CON patties (both CON-9 and CON-12) remained intermediate for off-flavor ratings. This suggests, the longer cattle were fed with the GCE supplement, the greater the perceivable off-flavor. This similarly aligns with the findings of a study conducted on dairy cows, in which researchers detected milk and cheese produced from cows supplemented with either diallyl sulfide (common volatile in garlic) or whole cloves of garlic had stronger (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.001) garlic-like aroma and flavor, compared to milk and cheese produced from cows on a commercial diet (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r26">Rossi et&#x000A0;al., 2017</xref>).</p><table-wrap id="tab4"><label>Table 4.</label><caption><p>Demographic characteristics and consumption behavior of consumers (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;100) who participated in 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>Characteristic</th><th align="center">Response</th><th align="center">Percentage of consumers</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td><bold>Gender</bold></td><td>Male</td><td>40%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Female</td><td>60%</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Household size</bold></td><td>1 person</td><td>27%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>2 people</td><td>26%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>3 people</td><td>18%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>4 people</td><td>20%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>5 people</td><td>6%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>6 people</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>&#x0003E; 6 people</td><td>2%</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Marital status</bold></td><td>Single</td><td>64%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Married</td><td>36%</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Age</bold></td><td>&#x0003C; 20&#x000A0;years</td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>20 to 29&#x000A0;years</td><td>34%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>30 to 39&#x000A0;years</td><td>19%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>40 to 49&#x000A0;years</td><td>21%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>50 to 59&#x000A0;years</td><td>12%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>&#x0003E; 60&#x000A0;years</td><td>11%</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Ethnic origin</bold></td><td>African American</td><td>5%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Caucasian/White</td><td>51%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Hispanic</td><td>34%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Native American</td><td>4%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Mixed race</td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Other</td><td>3%</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Annual household income</bold></td><td>&#x0003C; $25,000</td><td>23%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>$25,000&#x02013;$34,999</td><td>7%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>$35,000&#x02013;$49,999</td><td>15%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>$50,000&#x02013;$74,999</td><td>17%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>$75,000&#x02013;$99,999</td><td>17%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>$100,000&#x02013;$149,999</td><td>13%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>&#x0003E; $150,000</td><td>8%</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Educational level</bold></td><td>Non-high school graduate</td><td>2%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>High school graduate</td><td>13%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Some college/technical school</td><td>33%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>College graduate</td><td>28%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>Post graduate</td><td>24%</td></tr><tr><td><bold>Weekly beef consumption</bold></td><td>None</td><td>1%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>1 to 3 times</td><td>45%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>4 to 6 times</td><td>29%</td></tr><tr><td/><td>7 or more times</td><td>25%</td></tr><tr><td rowspan="3"><bold>Most important palatability Trait when eating beef</bold></td><td>Flavor</td><td>49%</td></tr><tr><td>Juiciness</td><td>17%</td></tr><tr><td>Tenderness</td><td>34%</td></tr></tbody></table></table-wrap><table-wrap id="tab5"><label>Table 5.</label><caption><p>Least-squares means of the interaction between diet<sup>1</sup> and duration fed<sup>2</sup> upon consumer ratings,<sup>3</sup> percentage acceptability, and different perceived quality levels by consumer panelists (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;100) of the palatability traits of patties.</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="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/></colgroup><thead><tr><th/><th colspan="4" align="center">Diet</th><th colspan="4" align="center">Duration fed</th><th colspan="2" align="center">Diet&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;Duration</th></tr><tr><th/><th align="center">GCE</th><th align="center">CON</th><th align="center">SEM<sup>4</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>P</italic> value</th><th align="center">9MO</th><th align="center">12MO</th><th align="center">SEM<sup>4</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>P</italic> value</th><th align="center">SEM<sup>4</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>P</italic> value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="11"><bold>Consumer ratings</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Juiciness</td><td>57.38</td><td>58.48</td><td>2.65</td><td>0.727</td><td>59.81</td><td>56.05</td><td>2.52</td><td>0.230</td><td>3.59</td><td>0.495</td></tr><tr><td>Tenderness</td><td>63.65</td><td>63.25</td><td>2.24</td><td>0.871</td><td>66.06</td><td>60.84</td><td>2.15</td><td>0.039</td><td>2.97</td><td>0.759</td></tr><tr><td>Off-flavor intensity</td><td>9.31</td><td>8.63</td><td>2.02</td><td>0.788</td><td>8.59</td><td>9.35</td><td>1.94</td><td>0.758</td><td>2.78</td><td>0.020</td></tr><tr><td>Flavor liking</td><td>61.37</td><td>61.55</td><td>2.68</td><td>0.956</td><td>62.03</td><td>60.89</td><td>2.57</td><td>0.718</td><td>3.66</td><td>0.189</td></tr><tr><td>Overall liking</td><td>60.68</td><td>60.04</td><td>2.51</td><td>0.830</td><td>61.29</td><td>59.43</td><td>2.41</td><td>0.522</td><td>3.37</td><td>0.397</td></tr><tr><td colspan="11"><bold>Acceptability, %</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Juiciness</td><td>83.05</td><td>80.70</td><td>3.51</td><td>0.601</td><td>85.18</td><td>78.57</td><td>3.35</td><td>0.140</td><td>4.98</td><td>0.713</td></tr><tr><td>Tenderness</td><td>88.57</td><td>87.45</td><td>2.60</td><td>0.725</td><td>91.54</td><td>84.47</td><td>2.50</td><td>0.032</td><td>3.57</td><td>0.319</td></tr><tr><td>Flavor</td><td>84.32</td><td>86.76</td><td>3.01</td><td>0.495</td><td>86.92</td><td>84.16</td><td>2.87</td><td>0.438</td><td>4.09</td><td>0.244</td></tr><tr><td>Overall liking</td><td>86.14</td><td>81.99</td><td>2.90</td><td>0.245</td><td>86.41</td><td>81.72</td><td>2.77</td><td>0.185</td><td>4.00</td><td>0.873</td></tr><tr><td colspan="11"><bold>Quality level</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Unsatisfactory</td><td>13.74</td><td>20.19</td><td>3.17</td><td>0.101</td><td>13.74</td><td>20.19</td><td>3.02</td><td>0.098</td><td>4.38</td><td>0.829</td></tr><tr><td>Everyday</td><td>53.43</td><td>45.27</td><td>3.71</td><td>0.101</td><td>49.19</td><td>49.40</td><td>3.55</td><td>0.950</td><td>5.40</td><td>0.680</td></tr><tr><td>Better than everyday</td><td>25.50</td><td>25.66</td><td>3.46</td><td>0.973</td><td>28.66</td><td>22.50</td><td>3.09</td><td>0.188</td><td>5.10</td><td>0.300</td></tr><tr><td>Premium</td><td>7.01</td><td>10.90</td><td>2.49</td><td>0.189</td><td>11.83</td><td>6.08</td><td>2.39</td><td>0.047</td><td>3.35</td><td>0.017</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn><label><sup>1</sup></label><p>Diet&#x02009;=&#x02009;GCE (garlic-citrus extract); CON (control).</p></fn><fn><label><sup>2</sup></label><p>Duration fed&#x02009;=&#x02009;9MO (9 month); 12MO (12 month).</p></fn><fn><label><sup>3</sup></label><p>Sensory scores: 0&#x02009;=&#x02009;not juicy/not tender/no off-flavor/dislike extremely/dislike extremely, and 100&#x02009;=&#x02009;very juicy/very tender/extremely intense off-flavor/like extremely/like extremely.</p></fn><fn><label><sup>4</sup></label><p>SEM (standard error of the mean)(largest) of the least-squares means.</p></fn><fn><label><sup>a,b</sup></label><p>Least-squares means in the same row without a common superscript differ (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.05).</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><table-wrap id="tab6"><label>Table 6.</label><caption><p>Least-squares means of the interaction between diet<sup>1</sup> and duration fed<sup>2</sup> upon consumer ratings<sup>3</sup>, percentage acceptability, and different perceived quality levels by consumer panelists (<italic>n</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;100) of the palatability traits of steaks.</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><colgroup><col align="left" width="7*"/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/></colgroup><thead><tr><th/><th colspan="4" align="center">Diet</th><th colspan="4" align="center">Duration fed</th><th colspan="2" align="center">Diet&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;Duration</th></tr><tr><th/><th align="center">GCE</th><th align="center">CON</th><th align="center">SEM<sup>4</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>P</italic> value</th><th align="center">9MO</th><th align="center">12MO</th><th align="center">SEM<sup>4</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>P</italic> value</th><th align="center">SEM<sup>4</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>P</italic> value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="11"><bold>Consumer ratings</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Juiciness</td><td>61.37</td><td>65.47</td><td>2.93</td><td>0.188</td><td>64.00</td><td>62.83</td><td>2.90</td><td>0.712</td><td>3.84</td><td>0.989</td></tr><tr><td>Tenderness</td><td>65.31</td><td>68.43</td><td>2.81</td><td>0.221</td><td>67.69</td><td>66.05</td><td>2.78</td><td>0.521</td><td>3.46</td><td>0.622</td></tr><tr><td>Off-flavor intensity</td><td>10.75</td><td>8.72</td><td>1.78</td><td>0.389</td><td>9.78</td><td>9.69</td><td>1.74</td><td>0.972</td><td>2.61</td><td>0.906</td></tr><tr><td>Flavor liking</td><td>60.82</td><td>64.14</td><td>2.47</td><td>0.206</td><td>62.06</td><td>62.90</td><td>2.39</td><td>0.745</td><td>3.18</td><td>0.913</td></tr><tr><td>Overall liking</td><td>58.80</td><td>63.89</td><td>2.70</td><td>0.054</td><td>61.11</td><td>61.58</td><td>2.62</td><td>0.857</td><td>3.35</td><td>0.771</td></tr><tr><td colspan="11"><bold>Acceptability, %</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Juiciness</td><td>85.41</td><td>82.43</td><td>3.19</td><td>0.458</td><td>83.99</td><td>83.85</td><td>3.00</td><td>0.971</td><td>4.39</td><td>0.389</td></tr><tr><td>Tenderness</td><td>88.97</td><td>90.33</td><td>3.28</td><td>0.722</td><td>90.82</td><td>88.47</td><td>3.12</td><td>0.531</td><td>4.36</td><td>0.760</td></tr><tr><td>Flavor</td><td>84.53</td><td>84.90</td><td>2.92</td><td>0.910</td><td>83.27</td><td>86.16</td><td>2.88</td><td>0.400</td><td>3.96</td><td>0.956</td></tr><tr><td>Overall liking</td><td>83.59</td><td>82.45</td><td>3.48</td><td>0.758</td><td>81.71</td><td>84.33</td><td>3.34</td><td>0.472</td><td>4.45</td><td>0.616</td></tr><tr><td colspan="11"><bold>Quality level</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Unsatisfactory</td><td>14.27</td><td>15.89</td><td>3.44</td><td>0.699</td><td>14.72</td><td>15.40</td><td>3.32</td><td>0.870</td><td>4.65</td><td>0.926</td></tr><tr><td>Everyday</td><td>50.49</td><td>43.60</td><td>4.06</td><td>0.209</td><td>48.80</td><td>45.30</td><td>3.90</td><td>0.522</td><td>5.99</td><td>0.362</td></tr><tr><td>Better than everyday</td><td>25.43</td><td>29.83</td><td>3.69</td><td>0.356</td><td>25.19</td><td>30.07</td><td>3.48</td><td>0.297</td><td>5.18</td><td>0.303</td></tr><tr><td>Premium</td><td>9.48</td><td>10.06</td><td>2.70</td><td>0.848</td><td>11.44</td><td>8.11</td><td>4.42</td><td>0.276</td><td>3.62</td><td>0.631</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn><label><sup>1</sup></label><p>Diet&#x02009;=&#x02009;GCE (garlic-citrus extract); CON (control).</p></fn><fn><label><sup>2</sup></label><p>Duration fed&#x02009;=&#x02009;9MO (9 month); 12MO (12 month).</p></fn><fn><label><sup>3</sup></label><p>Sensory scores: 0&#x02009;=&#x02009;not juicy/not tender/no off-flavor/dislike extremely/dislike extremely, and 100&#x02009;=&#x02009;very juicy/very tender/extremely intense off-flavor/like extremely/like extremely.</p></fn><fn><label><sup>4</sup></label><p>SEM (standard error of the mean)(largest) of the least-squares means.</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><p>Moreover, consumers deemed CON-9 patties the highest percentage (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.017) as a premium quality level (17.38%), when compared to all other treatment combinations (&#x02264; 7.75%). No other interactions (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.189) were detected from consumer evaluations.</p><p>Juiciness, tenderness, off-flavor intensity, and flavor liking of strip loin steaks were not impacted by diet or duration-fed (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.188). Analysis of consumer evaluations suggests diet and duration-fed impacted consumer ratings, perceived quality levels, and the percentage of steaks and patties rated acceptable. Steaks from GCE-fed cattle rated lower (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.054) for overall liking than CON steaks. In a study evaluating pork loin chops, Janz et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r15">2007</xref>) collected samples derived from pigs fed oils/oleoresins of common herbs and spices (including garlic) and fed them to unbiased consumers to evaluate detectable flavor/aroma differences. Similar to the current study, consumers were unable to distinguish treated whole muscle pork samples from the control using flavor as the evaluation factor (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r15">Janz et&#x000A0;al., 2007</xref>). Moreover, patties were not impacted by diet or duration-fed (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.230) for juiciness, tenderness, flavor liking, and overall liking, except 9MO patties depicted higher tenderness ratings (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.039) than 12MO patties.</p><p>Percentages of acceptability for consumer evaluations (juiciness, tenderness, flavor, and overall liking), as well as perceived quality level percentages (unsatisfactory, everyday quality, better than everyday quality, and premium quality) were rated similarly (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.209) among diet and duration-fed treatments for steaks. Consumers regarded 9MO patties at a higher percentage of tenderness acceptability (91.54%; <italic>P</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.032) than 12MO patties (84.47%). All other percentages of consumer acceptability and perceived quality levels of patties for diet and duration-fed evaluations were rated similarly (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.101). In general, the majority of steaks and patties were rated as everyday quality or better.</p></sec><sec id="sec3.4"><title>Descriptive trained panels</title><p><xref ref-type="table" rid="tab7">Table&#x000A0;7</xref> contains the interaction and main effect means of descriptive trained panelist attributes affected by diet and duration-fed for steaks and patties. Descriptive trained panelists&#x02019; ratings depicted an interaction (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.028) among patties, rating CON-12 patties higher for the oxidized attribute than CON-9 patties, whereas GCE treatments were rated intermediately.</p><table-wrap id="tab7"><label>Table 7.</label><caption><p>Least-squares means for descriptive trained panel attributes<sup>1</sup> of steaks and patties by diet<sup>2</sup> and duration fed.<sup>3</sup></p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><colgroup><col align="left" width="7*"/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="center" width="7*"/><col align="center" width="7*"/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="center" width="7*"/><col align="center" width="7*"/><col align="center" width="7*"/><col align="center" width="7*"/></colgroup><thead><tr><th/><th colspan="4" align="center">Diet</th><th colspan="4" align="center">Duration fed</th><th colspan="2" align="center">Diet&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;Duration</th></tr><tr><th/><th align="center">GCE</th><th align="center">CON</th><th align="center">SEM<sup>4</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>P</italic> value</th><th align="center">9MO</th><th align="center">12MO</th><th align="center">SEM<sup>4</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>P</italic> value</th><th align="center">SEM<sup>4</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>P</italic> value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td colspan="11"><bold>Steaks</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Juiciness</td><td>58.79</td><td>58.19</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.629</td><td>59.25</td><td>57.73</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.225</td><td>1.32</td><td>0.457</td></tr><tr><td>Tenderness</td><td>64.64</td><td>61.78</td><td>1.75</td><td>0.238</td><td>62.84</td><td>63.58</td><td>1.75</td><td>0.753</td><td>2.69</td><td>0.279</td></tr><tr><td>Beef flavor Identity</td><td>54.95</td><td>54.62</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.671</td><td>55.52</td><td>54.05</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.069</td><td>0.76</td><td>0.103</td></tr><tr><td>Browned</td><td>52.55</td><td>51.73</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.108</td><td>52.96</td><td>51.32</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.004</td><td>0.60</td><td>0.255</td></tr><tr><td>Roasted</td><td>54.25</td><td>54.23</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.971</td><td>54.67</td><td>53.81</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.181</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.197</td></tr><tr><td>Fat-like</td><td>14.41</td><td>14.58</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.805</td><td>15.00</td><td>13.99</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.164</td><td>0.69</td><td>0.135</td></tr><tr><td>Buttery</td><td>1.88</td><td>1.71</td><td>0.33</td><td>0.672</td><td>2.07</td><td>1.52</td><td>0.33</td><td>0.186</td><td>0.50</td><td>0.607</td></tr><tr><td>Umami</td><td>19.44</td><td>17.25</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.001</td><td>19.28</td><td>17.41</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.005</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.270</td></tr><tr><td>Metallic</td><td>1.90</td><td>2.74</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.207</td><td>2.29</td><td>2.35</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.921</td><td>0.71</td><td>0.543</td></tr><tr><td>Oxidized</td><td>0.69</td><td>0.98</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.510</td><td>1.33</td><td>0.33</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.035</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.272</td></tr><tr><td>Liver-like</td><td>0.90</td><td>1.66</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.099</td><td>1.22</td><td>1.34</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.778</td><td>0.48</td><td>0.720</td></tr><tr><td>Sour</td><td>0.74</td><td>0.90</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.756</td><td>0.92</td><td>0.72</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.689</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.581</td></tr><tr><td>Bitter</td><td>1.08</td><td>1.92</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.137</td><td>1.50</td><td>1.50</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.999</td><td>0.64</td><td>0.842</td></tr><tr><td>Garlic Intensity</td><td>23.70</td><td>0.00</td><td>6.29</td><td>0.013</td><td>16.00</td><td>7.70</td><td>6.29</td><td>0.335</td><td>9.94</td><td>0.335</td></tr><tr><td colspan="11"><bold>Patties</bold></td></tr><tr><td>Juiciness</td><td>53.33</td><td>51.79</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.202</td><td>53.13</td><td>51.99</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.494</td><td>1.66</td><td>0.806</td></tr><tr><td>Tenderness</td><td>38.58</td><td>38.06</td><td>1.75</td><td>0.743</td><td>39.56</td><td>39.08</td><td>1.75</td><td>0.343</td><td>1.63</td><td>0.767</td></tr><tr><td>Beef flavor Identity</td><td>50.79</td><td>51.77</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.291</td><td>51.64</td><td>50.91</td><td>0.53</td><td>0.425</td><td>0.98</td><td>0.562</td></tr><tr><td>Browned</td><td>50.24</td><td>52.97</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.018</td><td>51.55</td><td>51.65</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.927</td><td>1.17</td><td>0.970</td></tr><tr><td>Roasted</td><td>51.45</td><td>51.96</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.663</td><td>51.91</td><td>51.50</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.727</td><td>1.23</td><td>0.432</td></tr><tr><td>Fat-like</td><td>16.93</td><td>16.40</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.544</td><td>16.95</td><td>16.39</td><td>0.49</td><td>0.519</td><td>0.96</td><td>0.562</td></tr><tr><td>Buttery</td><td>0.72</td><td>1.02</td><td>0.33</td><td>0.636</td><td>1.03</td><td>0.71</td><td>0.33</td><td>0.608</td><td>0.72</td><td>0.378</td></tr><tr><td>Umami</td><td>18.15</td><td>17.43</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.587</td><td>18.26</td><td>17.31</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.474</td><td>1.76</td><td>0.607</td></tr><tr><td>Metallic</td><td>2.26</td><td>2.54</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.671</td><td>2.24</td><td>2.56</td><td>0.47</td><td>0.627</td><td>0.746</td><td>0.064</td></tr><tr><td>Oxidized</td><td>1.56</td><td>1.58</td><td>0.32</td><td>0.953</td><td>1.73</td><td>1.41</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.530</td><td>0.46</td><td>0.028</td></tr><tr><td>Liver-like</td><td>1.61</td><td>2.35</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.171</td><td>1.82</td><td>2.15</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.659</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.655</td></tr><tr><td>Sour</td><td>1.11</td><td>1.24</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.862</td><td>1.39</td><td>0.96</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.573</td><td>0.87</td><td>0.530</td></tr><tr><td>Bitter</td><td>2.86</td><td>1.85</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.020</td><td>2.53</td><td>2.18</td><td>0.41</td><td>0.533</td><td>0.57</td><td>0.224</td></tr><tr><td>Garlic Intensity</td><td>29.50</td><td>6.50</td><td>8.66</td><td>0.064</td><td>17.00</td><td>19.00</td><td>8.66</td><td>0.864</td><td>13.69</td><td>0.551</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn><label><sup>1</sup></label><p>Attribute scores: 0&#x02009;=&#x02009;not present and 100&#x02009;=&#x02009;very intense.</p></fn><fn><label><sup>2</sup></label><p>Diet&#x02009;=&#x02009;GCE (garlic-citrus extract); CON (control).</p></fn><fn><label><sup>3</sup></label><p>Duration fed&#x02009;=&#x02009;9MO (9 month); 12MO (12 month).</p></fn><fn><label><sup>4</sup></label><p>SEM (standard error of the mean)(largest) of the least-squares means.</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><p>Of note, a key ingredient of the manufacturer&#x02019;s GCE supplement encompasses garlic substrates; therefore, garlic intensity was measured. Odor has been noted as a key factor influencing food flavor (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r28">Shankaranarayana et&#x000A0;al., 1975</xref>). Therefore, upon olfactory recognition of garlic in cooked steaks and patties, panelists evaluated samples for garlic intensity. Panelists determined an effect (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.013) among steaks, and a tendency (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.064) among patties, in which GCE samples rated higher for garlic intensity when compared to CON samples. No difference (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.335) for garlic intensity existed between duration-fed treatments. Similarly, Leong et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r17">2010</xref>) fed swine increasing levels of garlic oil in an attempt to mask other undesirable flavors or aromas. Researchers reported that as garlic oil increased in the swine&#x02019;s diets, both garlic aroma and flavor were detected and intensified (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r17">Leong et&#x000A0;al., 2010</xref>). Amongst other ruminant studies, Fraser et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r11">2007</xref>) supplemented sheep with levels of garlic powder to quantify residuals within tissues, in addition to sensory effects. While successfully masking other natural off-flavors within the sheep meat, researchers reported an obvious detection of garlic flavor within meat samples. Garlic intensity was especially noted within subcutaneous fat portions, further producing a less desirable flavor profile (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r11">Fraser et&#x000A0;al., 2007</xref>).</p><p>Panelists detected a stronger umami flavor in GCE steaks (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.001) and 9MO steaks (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.005) when compared with CON and 12MO steaks, respectively. Presumably, as similarly reported by Corbin et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r7">2015</xref>) and Motoyama et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r20">2016</xref>) referencing beef with high percentages of intramuscular fat, some umami difference may correspond with the higher fat percentage among 9MO steaks (20.88% fat) versus the 12MO steaks (9.40% fat). Previous literature indicates that as intramuscular fat percentage increases, umami flavor also increases (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r7">Corbin et&#x000A0;al., 2015</xref>; <xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r20">Motoyama et&#x000A0;al., 2016</xref>). Ratings for browned and oxidized attributes were also rated higher (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02264;&#x02009;0.035) for 9MO steaks than 12MO steaks. Regarding patties, panelists rated GCE patties lower for browned (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.018) and higher for bitter (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.020) attributes, when compared to CON patties. Though statistically different, most ratings were numerically similar and would likely go undetected by the average consumer, the exception being garlic intensity. All other descriptive panel attributes of steaks and patties among varying diets and durations fed did not differ (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.069). Among duration-fed treatments, fat percentage differences (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02264;&#x02009;0.034) produced higher percentages in 9MO versus 12MO steaks, though surprisingly few descriptive sensory differences occurred. Corbin et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r7">2015</xref>) also noted, once tenderness acceptability is met, the palatable expectation then relies on flavor. As flavor has previously been attributed to fat type and content, Corbin et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r7">2015</xref>) reported the assessment of numerous quality levels of beef steaks, where few descriptive sensory attributes differed among quality levels once exceeding approximately 9% chemical fat, much like what was observed in the current study.</p></sec><sec id="sec3.5"><title>Fatty acid profile</title><p>Interaction and main effect means for the percentage of fatty acids are located in <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab8">Tables&#x000A0;8</xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab9">9</xref> for steaks and patties, respectively. An interaction (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.002) among treatment combinations of steaks was detected for total percentage of PUFA, suggesting CON-12 steaks have a higher percentage (7.36%) of PUFA than all other treatment combinations (&#x02264; 4.81%). Among patties, the percentage of &#x003B1;-linolenic (C18:3 n-3) was reported at a higher (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.039) percentage rate for GCE-9 patties than the remaining treatments. Eicosadienoic (C20:2) percentage within CON-12 patties was detected higher than both GCE treatment combinations, whereas CON-9 eicosadienoic percentages were determined intermediate.</p><table-wrap id="tab8"><label>Table 8.</label><caption><p>Least-squares means for the interaction between diet<sup>1</sup> and duration fed<sup>2</sup> upon the percentage of fatty acid profiles of raw steaks.</p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><colgroup><col align="left" width="7*"/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/></colgroup><thead><tr><th/><th colspan="4" align="center">Diet</th><th colspan="4" align="center">Duration fed</th><th colspan="2" align="center">Diet&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;Duration</th></tr><tr><th/><th align="center">GCE</th><th align="center">CON</th><th align="center">SEM<sup>4</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>P</italic> value</th><th align="center">9MO</th><th align="center">12MO</th><th align="center">SEM<sup>4</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>P</italic> value</th><th align="center">SEM<sup>4</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>P</italic> value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>C10:0</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.01</td><td>&#x0003C; 0.01</td><td>0.422</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.01</td><td>&#x0003C; 0.01</td><td>0.343</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.874</td></tr><tr><td>C12:0</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.689</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.161</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.471</td></tr><tr><td>C14:0</td><td>6.34</td><td>5.99</td><td>0.88</td><td>0.804</td><td>8.29</td><td>4.04</td><td>1.09</td><td>0.057</td><td>1.78</td><td>0.942</td></tr><tr><td>C15:0</td><td>1.22</td><td>1.08</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.530</td><td>1.51</td><td>0.79</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.006</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.257</td></tr><tr><td>C16:0</td><td>43.75</td><td>45.75</td><td>4.98</td><td>0.781</td><td>59.61</td><td>29.89</td><td>4.98</td><td>0.001</td><td>7.43</td><td>0.715</td></tr><tr><td>C17:0</td><td>2.02</td><td>2.10</td><td>0.22</td><td>0.706</td><td>2.83</td><td>1.29</td><td>0.22</td><td>&#x0003C; 0.001</td><td>0.38</td><td>0.609</td></tr><tr><td>C18:0</td><td>15.18</td><td>16.07</td><td>1.69</td><td>0.715</td><td>20.27</td><td>10.97</td><td>1.69</td><td>0.002</td><td>2.52</td><td>0.526</td></tr><tr><td>C14:1 n-5</td><td>2.70</td><td>2.22</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.332</td><td>3.48</td><td>1.44</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.001</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.884</td></tr><tr><td>C16:1 n-7</td><td>8.22</td><td>8.86</td><td>0.78</td><td>0.441</td><td>11.62</td><td>5.47</td><td>0.82</td><td>0.002</td><td>1.65</td><td>0.856</td></tr><tr><td>C17:1</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.107</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.068</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.741</td></tr><tr><td>C18:1 n-9</td><td>60.11</td><td>63.64</td><td>5.77</td><td>0.672</td><td>80.93</td><td>42.82</td><td>5.77</td><td>&#x0003C; 0.001</td><td>8.61</td><td>0.392</td></tr><tr><td>C18:2 n-6</td><td>4.72</td><td>4.88</td><td>0.64</td><td>0.862</td><td>5.70</td><td>3.90</td><td>0.64</td><td>0.066</td><td>0.95</td><td>0.411</td></tr><tr><td>C18:3 n-3</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.905</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.319</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.696</td></tr><tr><td>C20:2</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.01</td><td>&#x0003C; 0.001</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.006</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.128</td></tr><tr><td>C20:3 n-6</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.926</td><td>0.27</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.252</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.184</td></tr><tr><td>C20:4 n-6</td><td>0.55</td><td>0.62</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.488</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.648</td><td>0.66</td><td>0.845</td></tr><tr><td>Total % SFA</td><td>43.47</td><td>43.16</td><td>1.07</td><td>0.845</td><td>44.00</td><td>42.63</td><td>1.12</td><td>0.394</td><td>1.66</td><td>0.364</td></tr><tr><td>Total % MUFA</td><td>51.90</td><td>51.41</td><td>0.98</td><td>0.732</td><td>52.19</td><td>51.13</td><td>1.03</td><td>0.466</td><td>1.51</td><td>0.987</td></tr><tr><td>Total % PUFA</td><td>4.58</td><td>5.57</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.023</td><td>4.06</td><td>6.08</td><td>0.39</td><td>&#x0003C; 0.001</td><td>0.68</td><td>0.002</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn><label><sup>1</sup></label><p>Attribute scores: 0&#x02009;=&#x02009;not present and 100&#x02009;=&#x02009;very intense.</p></fn><fn><label><sup>2</sup></label><p>Diet&#x02009;=&#x02009;GCE (garlic-citrus extract); CON (control).</p></fn><fn><label><sup>3</sup></label><p>Duration fed&#x02009;=&#x02009;9MO (9 month); 12MO (12 month).</p></fn><fn><label><sup>4</sup></label><p>SEM (standard error of the mean)(largest) of the least-squares means.</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><table-wrap id="tab9"><label>Table 9.</label><caption><p>Least-squares means for the interaction between diet<sup>1</sup> and duration fed<sup>2</sup> upon the percentage of fatty acid profiles of raw patties.</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="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/></colgroup><thead><tr><th/><th colspan="4" align="center">Diet</th><th colspan="4" align="center">Duration fed</th><th colspan="2" align="center">Diet&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;Duration</th></tr><tr><th/><th align="center">GCE</th><th align="center">CON</th><th align="center">SEM<sup>4</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>P</italic> value</th><th align="center">9MO</th><th align="center">12MO</th><th align="center">SEM<sup>4</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>P</italic> value</th><th align="center">SEM<sup>4</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>P</italic> value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>C10:0</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.01</td><td>&#x0003C; 0.01</td><td>0.793</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.01</td><td>&#x0003C; 0.01</td><td>0.568</td><td>&#x0003C; 0.01</td><td>0.677</td></tr><tr><td>C12:0</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.367</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.775</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.798</td></tr><tr><td>C14:0</td><td>3.75</td><td>4.15</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.366</td><td>4.25</td><td>3.64</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.141</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.490</td></tr><tr><td>C15:0</td><td>0.82</td><td>0.74</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.429</td><td>0.85</td><td>0.71</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.166</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.367</td></tr><tr><td>C16:0</td><td>28.55</td><td>30.07</td><td>2.35</td><td>0.615</td><td>32.12</td><td>26.50</td><td>2.26</td><td>0.081</td><td>3.80</td><td>0.627</td></tr><tr><td>C17:0</td><td>1.40</td><td>1.23</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.374</td><td>1.47</td><td>1.16</td><td>0.14</td><td>0.120</td><td>1.64</td><td>0.359</td></tr><tr><td>C18:0</td><td>9.46</td><td>9.62</td><td>0.70</td><td>0.863</td><td>10.20</td><td>8.88</td><td>0.68</td><td>0.166</td><td>1.11</td><td>0.243</td></tr><tr><td>C14:1 n-5</td><td>2.10</td><td>2.03</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.779</td><td>2.35</td><td>1.78</td><td>0.17</td><td>0.028</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.884</td></tr><tr><td>C16:1 n-7</td><td>7.37</td><td>8.51</td><td>0.97</td><td>0.352</td><td>8.45</td><td>7.43</td><td>0.93</td><td>0.428</td><td>1.65</td><td>0.856</td></tr><tr><td>C17:1</td><td>0.23</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.152</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.971</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.871</td></tr><tr><td>C18:1 n-9</td><td>44.80</td><td>50.14</td><td>3.98</td><td>0.318</td><td>51.29</td><td>43.65</td><td>3.85</td><td>0.160</td><td>6.29</td><td>0.379</td></tr><tr><td>C18:2 n-6</td><td>3.77</td><td>3.56</td><td>0.25</td><td>0.435</td><td>3.67</td><td>3.67</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.998</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.700</td></tr><tr><td>C18:3 n-3</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.081</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.163</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.039</td></tr><tr><td>C20:2</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.001</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.849</td><td>0.01</td><td>&#x0003C; 0.001</td></tr><tr><td>C20:3 n-6</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.749</td><td>0.22</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.01</td><td>0.206</td><td>0.02</td><td>0.408</td></tr><tr><td>C20:4 n-6</td><td>0.69</td><td>0.72</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.596</td><td>0.70</td><td>0.71</td><td>0.03</td><td>0.841</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.271</td></tr><tr><td>Total % SFA</td><td>39.80</td><td>38.08</td><td>0.81</td><td>0.124</td><td>39.49</td><td>38.38</td><td>0.78</td><td>0.307</td><td>1.28</td><td>0.871</td></tr><tr><td>Total % MUFA</td><td>54.89</td><td>57.09</td><td>0.97</td><td>0.100</td><td>55.94</td><td>56.06</td><td>0.93</td><td>0.915</td><td>1.53</td><td>0.527</td></tr><tr><td>Total % PUFA</td><td>5.50</td><td>4.42</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.047</td><td>4.21</td><td>5.73</td><td>0.43</td><td>0.005</td><td>0.61</td><td>0.261</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn><label><sup>1</sup></label><p>Attribute scores: 0&#x02009;=&#x02009;not present and 100&#x02009;=&#x02009;very intense.</p></fn><fn><label><sup>2</sup></label><p>Diet&#x02009;=&#x02009;GCE (garlic-citrus extract); CON (control).</p></fn><fn><label><sup>3</sup></label><p>Duration fed&#x02009;=&#x02009;9MO (9 month); 12MO (12 month).</p></fn><fn><label><sup>4</sup></label><p>SEM (standard error of the mean)(largest) of the least-squares means.</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><p>All fatty acid percentages were determined similarly (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.107) for steaks among diet treatments, with the exception of eicosadienoic (C20:2; <italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x0003C;&#x02009;0.001), which was detected at a higher percentage for CON steaks than GCE steaks, which mimics the interaction found in patties. Among duration-fed effects, pentadecylic (C15:0), palmitic (C16:0), margaric (C17:0), stearic (C18:0), myristoleic (C14:1 n-5), palmitoleic (C16:1 n-7), oleic (C18:2 n-6), and eicosadienoic (C20:2) were detected at higher (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02264;&#x02009;0.006) percentages for 9MO steaks than 12MO steaks, and tended (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02264;&#x02009;0.068) to contain higher percentages of myristic (14:0), heptadecenoic (C17:1), and &#x003B1;-linoleic (C18:3 n-3).</p><p>Total percentage of PUFA was detected at higher (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.047) rates for GCE patties, and tended (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.100) to contain a lower percentage of total MUFA, when compared to CON patties. Among duration-fed effects, 9MO patties contained a higher (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.028) percentage of myristoleic (C14:1 n-5) and a lower (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.005) total percentage of PUFA. All other fatty acid percentages among treatments for patties did not differ (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.081).</p><p>In summary, similar to observations among steaks, but in contrast to patty results, unsaturated fatty acid percentages were detected at higher levels in meat from sheep fed garlic substrates (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r25">Redoy et&#x000A0;al., 2020</xref>). Additionally, Redoy et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r25">2020</xref>) reported a decrease in SFA content, whereas no difference (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.124) occurred in the present study, regardless of sample type. Chu et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r8">2003</xref>), on the other hand, detected higher levels of linoleic and linolenic acids (C18:2 n-6 and C18:3 n-3) in steaks from steers supplemented with garlic components.</p></sec><sec id="sec3.6"><title>Volatile compound analysis</title><p>Volatile compounds of steaks and patties affected by diets and duration fed are located in <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab0">Tables&#x000A0;10</xref> and <xref ref-type="table" rid="tab11">11</xref>. With the exception of ethanol (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.058) concentration, no differences existed among volatile compounds of steaks and patties, regardless of treatment (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.107). Controversially, ethanol concentration was lower (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.038) for GCE steaks and higher (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.044) for GCE patties when compared to the CON samples. Additionally, 12MO steaks tended (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;=&#x02009;0.058) to present a higher ethanol concentration than 9MO steaks. Shankaranarayana et&#x000A0;al. (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r28">1975</xref>) in <italic>Volatile Sulfur Compounds in Food Flavors</italic> specifically listed garlic among foods attributed to sulfur-containing volatile compounds, including diallyl sulfide, dimethyl sulfide, and dimethyl disulfide, as well as methanethiol (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r28">Shankaranarayana et&#x000A0;al., 1975</xref>). Interestingly, sulfur-containing compounds were not different (<italic>P</italic>&#x02009;&#x02265;&#x02009;0.107), but all were detected numerically higher in GCE patties compared to CON patties, though the relation was reversed within steak samples. Flavor perception of a specific aroma or note is comprised of 100s to 1,000s of volatile compounds. The current method is limited to 5 sulfur-containing compounds; therefore, it is likely that many of the volatile compounds associated with garlic flavor were not captured. Moreover, sensory perception of garlic is also driven by various non-volatile components (<xref ref-type="bibr" rid="r18">Liu et&#x000A0;al., 2019</xref>) that were not accounted for.</p><table-wrap id="tab0"><label>Table 10.</label><caption><p>Least-squares means for volatile analysis of cooked steaks by diet<sup>1</sup> and duration fed.<sup>2</sup></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="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="center"/><col align="char" char="."/><col align="char" char="."/></colgroup><thead><tr><th/><th colspan="4" align="center">Diet</th><th colspan="4" align="center">Duration fed</th><th colspan="2" align="center">Diet&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;Duration</th></tr><tr><th/><th align="center">GCE</th><th align="center">CON</th><th align="center">SEM<sup>4</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>P</italic> value</th><th align="center">9MO</th><th align="center">12MO</th><th align="center">SEM<sup>4</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>P</italic> value</th><th align="center">SEM<sup>4</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>P</italic> value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Ethanol</td><td>3.66</td><td>8.03</td><td>1.42</td><td>0.038</td><td>3.88</td><td>7.81</td><td>1.35</td><td>0.058</td><td>11.72</td><td>0.091</td></tr><tr><td>Pentanal</td><td>4.54</td><td>4.72</td><td>0.54</td><td>0.805</td><td>4.27</td><td>4.99</td><td>0.51</td><td>0.331</td><td>0.76</td><td>0.913</td></tr><tr><td>Heptanal</td><td>9.93</td><td>9.88</td><td>0.79</td><td>0.965</td><td>9.50</td><td>10.31</td><td>0.75</td><td>0.461</td><td>1.12</td><td>0.063</td></tr><tr><td>Hexanal</td><td>63.25</td><td>54.82</td><td>7.81</td><td>0.435</td><td>59.77</td><td>58.30</td><td>7.41</td><td>0.891</td><td>11.05</td><td>0.833</td></tr><tr><td>Octanal</td><td>9.80</td><td>9.66</td><td>0.73</td><td>0.889</td><td>9.24</td><td>10.21</td><td>0.69</td><td>0.339</td><td>1.03</td><td>0.084</td></tr><tr><td>Nonanal</td><td>17.13</td><td>18.19</td><td>1.40</td><td>0.580</td><td>16.59</td><td>18.73</td><td>1.33</td><td>0.274</td><td>1.98</td><td>0.337</td></tr><tr><td>Decanal</td><td>4.04</td><td>4.63</td><td>0.32</td><td>0.187</td><td>4.13</td><td>4.54</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.349</td><td>0.45</td><td>0.713</td></tr><tr><td>Dodecanal</td><td>27.73</td><td>49.52</td><td>11.55</td><td>0.182</td><td>33.85</td><td>43.40</td><td>10.96</td><td>0.548</td><td>14.61</td><td>0.786</td></tr><tr><td>1-Octene</td><td>1.81</td><td>2.07</td><td>0.20</td><td>0.342</td><td>1.90</td><td>1.98</td><td>0.19</td><td>0.760</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.447</td></tr><tr><td>Octane</td><td>2.17</td><td>2.65</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.338</td><td>2.32</td><td>2.50</td><td>0.34</td><td>0.702</td><td>2.85</td><td>0.685</td></tr><tr><td>Acetic acid</td><td>43.34</td><td>60.15</td><td>12.08</td><td>0.317</td><td>47.09</td><td>56.40</td><td>11.46</td><td>0.575</td><td>17.08</td><td>0.843</td></tr><tr><td>Nonanoic acid</td><td>6.19</td><td>6.64</td><td>0.31</td><td>0.298</td><td>6.74</td><td>6.09</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.144</td><td>0.44</td><td>0.709</td></tr><tr><td>2-Pentyl furan</td><td>2.95</td><td>2.87</td><td>0.12</td><td>0.609</td><td>2.87</td><td>2.96</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.596</td><td>0.16</td><td>0.322</td></tr><tr><td>2-Propanone</td><td>23.05</td><td>39.77</td><td>8.90</td><td>0.231</td><td>26.19</td><td>36.62</td><td>9.44</td><td>0.448</td><td>14.07</td><td>0.790</td></tr><tr><td>2-Butanone</td><td>6.59</td><td>10.78</td><td>2.33</td><td>0.201</td><td>7.53</td><td>9.84</td><td>2.21</td><td>0.472</td><td>13.03</td><td>0.494</td></tr><tr><td>Acetaldehyde</td><td>115.05</td><td>169.49</td><td>38.19</td><td>0.306</td><td>143.58</td><td>140.97</td><td>36.23</td><td>0.960</td><td>54.01</td><td>0.814</td></tr><tr><td>2-ethyl-3,5/6-dimethylpyrazine</td><td>2.34</td><td>2.23</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.265</td><td>2.34</td><td>2.23</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.259</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.798</td></tr><tr><td>Diallyl sulfide</td><td>2.25</td><td>2.32</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.407</td><td>2.29</td><td>2.29</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.981</td><td>0.08</td><td>0.268</td></tr><tr><td>Methanethiol</td><td>8.38</td><td>19.74</td><td>4.94</td><td>0.557</td><td>10.41</td><td>17.71</td><td>4.69</td><td>0.625</td><td>24.17</td><td>0.817</td></tr><tr><td>Dimethyl sulfide</td><td>13.67</td><td>18.51</td><td>3.27</td><td>0.288</td><td>15.46</td><td>16.72</td><td>3.10</td><td>0.778</td><td>18.92</td><td>0.922</td></tr><tr><td>Carbon disulfide</td><td>17.43</td><td>27.25</td><td>5.09</td><td>0.173</td><td>19.31</td><td>25.36</td><td>4.83</td><td>0.391</td><td>7.20</td><td>0.981</td></tr><tr><td>Dimethyl disulfide</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.40</td><td>0.11</td><td>0.430</td><td>0.30</td><td>0.39</td><td>0.10</td><td>0.541</td><td>0.15</td><td>0.561</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn><label><sup>1</sup></label><p>Diet&#x02009;=&#x02009;GCE (garlic-citrus extract); CON (control).</p></fn><fn><label><sup>2</sup></label><p>Duration fed&#x02009;=&#x02009;9MO (9 month); 12MO (12 month).</p></fn><fn><label><sup>3</sup></label><p>SEM (standard error of the mean)(largest) of the least-squares means.</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap><table-wrap id="tab11"><label>Table 11.</label><caption><p>Least-squares means for volatile analysis of cooked patties by diet<sup>1</sup> and duration fed.<sup>2</sup></p></caption><table frame="hsides" rules="groups"><colgroup><col align="left" width="7*"/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="center" width="7*"/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/><col align="char" width="7*" char="."/></colgroup><thead><tr><th/><th colspan="4" align="center">Diet</th><th colspan="4" align="center">Duration fed</th><th colspan="2" align="center">Diet&#x02009;&#x000D7;&#x02009;Duration</th></tr><tr><th/><th align="center">GCE</th><th align="center">CON</th><th align="center">SEM<sup>4</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>P</italic> value</th><th align="center">9MO</th><th align="center">12MO</th><th align="center">SEM<sup>4</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>P</italic> value</th><th align="center">SEM<sup>4</sup></th><th align="center"><italic>P</italic> value</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Ethanol</td><td>5.78</td><td>2.78</td><td>0.96</td><td>0.044</td><td>4.21</td><td>4.34</td><td>0.96</td><td>0.973</td><td>1.44</td><td>0.479</td></tr><tr><td>Pentanal</td><td>6.47</td><td>4.45</td><td>1.62</td><td>0.383</td><td>4.23</td><td>6.69</td><td>1.62</td><td>0.291</td><td>2.42</td><td>0.515</td></tr><tr><td>Heptanal</td><td>11.16</td><td>10.69</td><td>1.57</td><td>0.869</td><td>9.14</td><td>12.71</td><td>1.57</td><td>0.129</td><td>2.34</td><td>0.474</td></tr><tr><td>Hexanal</td><td>76.62</td><td>60.70</td><td>16.86</td><td>0.510</td><td>52.67</td><td>84.65</td><td>17.52</td><td>0.194</td><td>26.77</td><td>0.578</td></tr><tr><td>Octanal</td><td>10.44</td><td>10.10</td><td>1.19</td><td>0.852</td><td>9.21</td><td>11.34</td><td>1.19</td><td>0.218</td><td>1.77</td><td>0.469</td></tr><tr><td>Nonanal</td><td>18.39</td><td>17.18</td><td>1.90</td><td>0.645</td><td>16.16</td><td>19.40</td><td>1.89</td><td>0.232</td><td>2.82</td><td>0.427</td></tr><tr><td>Decanal</td><td>4.31</td><td>3.55</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.370</td><td>3.87</td><td>3.99</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.680</td><td>4.53</td><td>0.388</td></tr><tr><td>Dodecanal</td><td>33.50</td><td>10.96</td><td>9.44</td><td>0.108</td><td>27.32</td><td>17.14</td><td>9.81</td><td>0.453</td><td>14.63</td><td>0.859</td></tr><tr><td>1-Octene</td><td>2.53</td><td>1.32</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.141</td><td>1.59</td><td>2.27</td><td>0.56</td><td>0.396</td><td>0.83</td><td>0.426</td></tr><tr><td>Octane</td><td>2.45</td><td>3.06</td><td>0.68</td><td>0.499</td><td>2.39</td><td>3.12</td><td>0.69</td><td>0.476</td><td>1.03</td><td>0.841</td></tr><tr><td>Acetic acid</td><td>52.62</td><td>35.66</td><td>7.67</td><td>0.158</td><td>39.38</td><td>48.90</td><td>7.68</td><td>0.448</td><td>11.45</td><td>0.157</td></tr><tr><td>Nonanoic acid</td><td>5.61</td><td>5.83</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.675</td><td>6.11</td><td>5.34</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.152</td><td>5.58</td><td>0.124</td></tr><tr><td>2-Pentyl furan</td><td>3.03</td><td>3.29</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.438</td><td>2.90</td><td>3.42</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.140</td><td>0.36</td><td>0.629</td></tr><tr><td>2-Propanone</td><td>24.74</td><td>21.52</td><td>2.81</td><td>0.425</td><td>23.79</td><td>22.47</td><td>2.81</td><td>0.728</td><td>4.19</td><td>0.629</td></tr><tr><td>2-Butanone</td><td>7.45</td><td>5.84</td><td>0.76</td><td>0.151</td><td>6.64</td><td>6.65</td><td>0.79</td><td>0.987</td><td>1.18</td><td>0.188</td></tr><tr><td>Acetaldehyde</td><td>138.48</td><td>94.97</td><td>21.53</td><td>0.168</td><td>92.45</td><td>141.00</td><td>22.38</td><td>0.127</td><td>33.37</td><td>0.136</td></tr><tr><td>2-ethyl-3,5/6-dimethylpyrazine</td><td>2.42</td><td>2.45</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.527</td><td>2.40</td><td>2.47</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.212</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.107</td></tr><tr><td>Diallyl sulfide</td><td>2.25</td><td>2.24</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.941</td><td>2.25</td><td>2.24</td><td>0.04</td><td>0.713</td><td>0.06</td><td>0.565</td></tr><tr><td>Methanethiol</td><td>11.43</td><td>4.96</td><td>2.82</td><td>0.107</td><td>9.15</td><td>7.24</td><td>2.74</td><td>0.647</td><td>4.09</td><td>0.850</td></tr><tr><td>Dimethyl sulfide</td><td>16.21</td><td>11.84</td><td>1.93</td><td>0.133</td><td>12.52</td><td>15.52</td><td>1.93</td><td>0.300</td><td>2.87</td><td>0.262</td></tr><tr><td>Carbon disulfide</td><td>27.40</td><td>21.54</td><td>6.32</td><td>0.512</td><td>16.96</td><td>31.99</td><td>6.57</td><td>0.109</td><td>9.79</td><td>0.695</td></tr><tr><td>Dimethyl disulfide</td><td>0.24</td><td>0.21</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.667</td><td>0.28</td><td>0.18</td><td>0.05</td><td>0.140</td><td>0.07</td><td>0.507</td></tr></tbody></table><table-wrap-foot><fn><label><sup>1</sup></label><p>Diet&#x02009;=&#x02009;GCE (garlic-citrus extract); CON (control).</p></fn><fn><label><sup>2</sup></label><p>Duration fed&#x02009;=&#x02009;9MO (9 month); 12MO (12 month).</p></fn><fn><label><sup>3</sup></label><p>SEM (standard error of the mean)(largest) of the least-squares means.</p></fn></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap></sec></sec><sec id="sec4"><title>Conclusions</title><p>Duration fed was minimally impacted palatability, whereas diet resulted in numerous effects, including proximate analysis, consumer ratings, and acceptability of palatability traits, descriptive trained sensory, biochemical composition, as well as retail color, with no effect on instrumental tenderness. Despite similar eating experiences of GCE steaks and patties when compared with a CON diet for consumers&#x02019; overall liking, and ultimately no differences in percentage acceptability for palatability (juiciness, tenderness, flavor and overall liking) of steaks and patties derived from cattle of different supplemented-diets, trained panelists confirmed initial olfactory garlic detection via garlic flavor intensity ratings from steaks and patties of GCE-fed cattle. Nonetheless, data from this study suggest cattle of the same breed composite produce carcass characteristics as used in our study are likely to produce negligible quality and palatability differences between GCE-supplemented beef and beef of standard finishing diets.</p></sec></body><back><ack><title>Acknowledgment</title><p>Research contracted by Mootral Ltd. (Mootral SA, Rolle, Switzerland). The authors declare no conflict of interest.</p></ack><sec id="sec6"><title>Author Contribution</title><p>Megan E. Eckhardt: formal analysis, investigation, data curation, writing&#x02014;original draft preparation, writing&#x02014;reviewing and editing, visualization, investigation; M. S. Hernandez: formal analysis, investigation, writing&#x02014;reviewing and editing; J. F. Legako: methodology, resources, writing&#x02014;reviewing and editing; Ty E. Lawrence: conceptualization, resources, supervision, writing&#x02014;reviewing and editing, funding acquisition; and Loni W. Lucherk: conceptualization, methodology, investigation, writing&#x02014;reviewing and editing, supervision, project administration, and funding acquisition.</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>Adhikari</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>E.</given-names> <surname>Chambers</surname><suffix>IV</suffix></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R.</given-names> <surname>Miller</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>L.</given-names> <surname>V&#x000E1;zquez-Ara&#x000FA;jo</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>N.</given-names> <surname>Bhumiratana</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>C.</given-names> <surname>Philip</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2011</year>. <article-title>Development of a lexicon for beef flavor in intact muscle</article-title>. <source>J. Sens. Stud</source>. <volume>26</volume>:<fpage>413</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>420</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2011.00356.x</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r2"><mixed-citation publication-type="other"><collab>AMSA</collab>. <year>2016</year>. <article-title>Research Guidelines for cookery, sensory evaluation, and instrumental tenderness measurements of meat</article-title>. <edition>2nd ed</edition>. <publisher-name>Am. Meat Sci. Assoc</publisher-name>. <publisher-loc>Champaign, IL</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r3"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Anderson</surname>, <given-names>S.</given-names></string-name></person-group> <year>2007</year>. <article-title>Determination of fat, moisture, and protein in meat and meat products by using the FOSS foodscan near-infrared spectrophotometer with FOSS artificial neural network calibration model and associated database: collaborative study</article-title>. <source>J. AOAC Int</source>. <volume>90</volume>:<fpage>1073</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>1083</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1093/jaoac/90.4.1073</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r4"><mixed-citation publication-type="book"><collab>AOAC</collab>. <year>2007</year>. <source>Official Methods of Analysis</source>. <edition>18th ed</edition>. <publisher-name>AOAC</publisher-name>, <publisher-loc>Arlington, VA</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r5"><mixed-citation publication-type="other"><collab>ASTM International</collab>. <year>2011</year>. <article-title>F2925&#x02013;11: Standard specification for tenderness marking claims associated with meat cuts derived from beef</article-title>. ASTM Int., <publisher-loc>West Conshohocken, PA</publisher-loc>. <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://www.astm.org">http://www.astm.org</ext-link>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r6"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Choi</surname>, <given-names>I. H.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>W. Y.</given-names> <surname>Park</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>Y. J.</given-names> <surname>Kim</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2010</year>. <article-title>Effects of dietary garlic powder and &#x003B1;-tocopherol supplementation on performance, serum cholesterol levels, and meat quality of chicken</article-title>. <source>Poult. Sci</source>. <volume>89</volume>:<fpage>1724</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>1731</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.3382/ps.2009-00052</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r7"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Corbin</surname>, <given-names>C. H.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>T. G.</given-names> <surname>O&#x02019;Quinn</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>A. J.</given-names> <surname>Garmyn</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. F.</given-names> <surname>Legako</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. R.</given-names> <surname>Hunt</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>T. T. N.</given-names> <surname>Dinh</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R. J.</given-names> <surname>Rathmann</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. C.</given-names> <surname>Brooks</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>M. F.</given-names> <surname>Miller</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2015</year>. <article-title>Sensory evaluation of tender beef strip loin steaks of varying marbling levels and quality treatments</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>100</volume>:<fpage>24</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>31</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.09.009</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r8"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Chu</surname> <given-names>G. M.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>H. J.</given-names> <surname>Lee</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. S.</given-names> <surname>Park</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>H. W.</given-names> <surname>Cho</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>B. H.</given-names> <surname>Ahn</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2003</year>. <article-title>Effect of garlic stalk silage on performance and carcass characteristics of Hanwoo steers</article-title>. <source>Korean Society of Animal Sciences and Technology</source> <volume>45</volume>:<fpage>1007</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>1018</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.5187/jast.2003.45.6.1007</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r9"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ding</surname>, <given-names>H.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>C.</given-names> <surname>Ao</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>X.</given-names> <surname>Zhang</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2023</year>. <article-title>Potential use of garlic products in ruminant feeding: A review</article-title>. <source>Animal Nutrition</source> <volume>14</volume>:<fpage>343</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>355</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.aninu.2023.04.011</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r10"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Dobbins</surname>, <given-names>T. W.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>S. E.</given-names> <surname>Blandon</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>A. D.</given-names> <surname>Roldan</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>K. E.</given-names> <surname>Hanlon</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>T. R.</given-names> <surname>Brown</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. X.</given-names> <surname>Sanchez Plata</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D. R.</given-names> <surname>Woerner</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. F.</given-names> <surname>Legako</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2024</year>. <article-title>Color evaluation and sensory analyses of beef subprimals following extended frozen storage</article-title>. <source>Meat Muscle Biol</source>. <volume>8</volume>:<issue>18249</issue>, <fpage>1</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>20</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb.18249</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r11"><mixed-citation publication-type="conf-proc"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Fraser</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>G. A.</given-names> <surname>Lane</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. R.</given-names> <surname>Kirk</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R. G.</given-names> <surname>Keogh</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>T. L.</given-names> <surname>Cummings</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2007</year>. <article-title>Effects of dietary herb supplements</article-title>. 67<sup>th</sup> Proc. N. Z. Soc. Anim. Prod., <conf-loc>Wanaka, New Zealand</conf-loc> 20&#x02013;22 <month>June</month> <year>2007</year>. Vol.&#x000A0;<volume>67</volume>: p.&#x000A0;<fpage>413</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>419</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r12"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Gardner</surname>, <given-names>K.</given-names></string-name> and <string-name><given-names>J. F.</given-names> <surname>Legako</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2018</year>. <article-title>Volatile flavor compounds vary by beef product type and degree of doneness</article-title>. <source>J. Anim. Sci</source>. <volume>96</volume>:<fpage>4238</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>4250</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1093/jas/sky287</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r13"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Gredell</surname>, <given-names>D. A.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. H.</given-names> <surname>McHenry</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D. R.</given-names> <surname>Woerner</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. F.</given-names> <surname>Legako</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>T. E.</given-names> <surname>Engle</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. C.</given-names> <surname>Brooks</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. D.</given-names> <surname>Tatum</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>K. E.</given-names> <surname>Belk</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2018</year>. <article-title>Palatability characterization of fresh and dry-aged ground beef patties</article-title>. <source>Meat Muscle Biol</source>. <volume>2</volume>:<fpage>265</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>276</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb2018.04.0007</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r14"><mixed-citation publication-type="thesis"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Hernandez</surname>, <given-names>M. J.</given-names></string-name></person-group> <year>2022</year>. <article-title>Ability, repeatability, and reproducibility of rapid evaporative ionization mass spectrometry to predict beef quality attributes</article-title>. M.S. thesis, <institution>Colorado State Univ.</institution>, <publisher-loc>Fort Collins, CO</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r15"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Janz</surname>, <given-names>J. A. M.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>P. C. H.</given-names> <surname>Morel</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>B. H. P.</given-names> <surname>Wilkinson</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>R. W.</given-names> <surname>Purchas</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2007</year>. <article-title>Preliminary investigation of the effects of low-level dietary inclusion of fragrant essential oils of oleoresins on pig performance and pork quality</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>75</volume>:<fpage>350</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>355</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.06.027</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r16"><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>D. 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>1</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>81</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb.12473</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r17"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Leong</surname>, <given-names>J.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>P. C. H.</given-names> <surname>Morel</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>R. W.</given-names> <surname>Purchas</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>B. H. P.</given-names> <surname>Wilkinson</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2010</year>. <article-title>The production of pork with garlic flavour notes using garlic essential oil</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>84</volume>:<fpage>699</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>705</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2009.11.006</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r18"><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>L.</given-names> <surname>Liu</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>W.</given-names> <surname>Guo</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M.</given-names> <surname>Fu</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M.</given-names> <surname>Yang</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>S.</given-names> <surname>Huang</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>F.</given-names> <surname>Zhang</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>Y.</given-names> <surname>Liu</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2019</year>. <article-title>A new methodology for sensory quality assessment of garlic based on metabolomics and an artificial neural network</article-title>. <source>RSC Adv</source>. <volume>9</volume>:<fpage>17754</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>17765</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1039/C9RA01978B</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r19"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Miller</surname>, <given-names>R.</given-names></string-name></person-group> <year>2020</year>. <article-title>Drivers of consumer liking for beef, pork, and lamb: A review</article-title>. <source>Foods</source>. <volume>9</volume>:<fpage>428</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9040428</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r20"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Motoyama</surname>, <given-names>M.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>K.</given-names> <surname>Sasaki</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>A.</given-names> <surname>Watanabe</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2016</year>. <article-title>Wagyu and other factors contributing to its beef quality: A Japanese industry overview</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>120</volume>:<fpage>10</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>18</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.04.026</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r21"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>O&#x02019;Fallon</surname>, <given-names>J. V.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. R.</given-names> <surname>Busboom</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. L.</given-names> <surname>Nelson</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>C. T.</given-names> <surname>Gaskins</surname></string-name></person-group>. <article-title>A direct method for fatty acid methyl ester synthesis: Application to wet meat tissues, oils, and feedstuffs</article-title>. <year>2007</year>. <source>J. Anim. Sci</source>. <volume>85</volume>:<fpage>1511</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>1521</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.2527/jas.2006-491</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r22"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>O&#x02019;Quinn</surname>, <given-names>T. G.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. F.</given-names> <surname>Legako</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. C.</given-names> <surname>Brooks</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>M. F.</given-names> <surname>Miller</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2018</year>. <article-title>Evaluation of the contribution of tenderness, juiciness, and flavor to the overall consumer beef eating experience</article-title>. <source>Translational Animal Science</source> <volume>2</volume>:<fpage>26</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>36</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txx008</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r23"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>O&#x02019;Quinn</surname>, <given-names>T. G.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. F.</given-names> <surname>Legako</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>D. R.</given-names> <surname>Woerner</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>C. R.</given-names> <surname>Kerth</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>M. N.</given-names> <surname>Nair</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. C.</given-names> <surname>Brooks</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. M.</given-names> <surname>Lancaster</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>R. K.</given-names> <surname>Miller</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2024</year>. <article-title>A current review of U.S. beef flavor II: Managing beef flavor</article-title>. <source>Meat Sci</source>. <volume>209</volume>:<fpage>109403</fpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2023.109403</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r24"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Ponce</surname>, <given-names>J. A.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>J. C.</given-names> <surname>Brooks</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>J. F.</given-names> <surname>Legako</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2019</year>. <article-title>Consumer liking and descriptive flavor attributes of M. Longissimus lumborum and M. Gluteus medius beef steaks held in varied packaging systems</article-title>. <source>Meat Muscle Biol</source>. <volume>3</volume>:<fpage>158</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>170</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb2018.12.0041</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r25"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Redoy</surname>, <given-names>M. R. A.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>A. A. S.</given-names> <surname>Shuvo</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>L.</given-names> <surname>Cheng</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>M.</given-names> <surname>Al-Mamun</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2020</year>. <article-title>Effect of herbal supplementation on growth, immunity, rumen histology, serum antioxidants and meat quality of sheep</article-title>. <source>Animal</source> <volume>14</volume>:<fpage>2433</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>2441</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.1017/S1751731120001196</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r26"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Rossi</surname>, <given-names>G.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>S.</given-names> <surname>Schiavon</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>G.</given-names> <surname>Lomolino</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>C.</given-names> <surname>Cipolat-Gotet</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>A.</given-names> <surname>Simonetto</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>G.</given-names> <surname>Bittante</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>F.</given-names> <surname>Tagliapietra</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>2017</year>. <article-title>Garlic (<italic>Allium sativum L.)</italic> fed to dairy cows does not modify the cheese-making properties of milk but affects the color, texture, and flavor of ripened cheese</article-title>. <source>J. Dairy Sci</source>. <volume>101</volume>:<fpage>2005</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>2015</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.3168/jds.2017-13884</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r27"><mixed-citation publication-type="journal"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Shackelford</surname>, <given-names>S. D.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>T. L.</given-names> <surname>Wheeler</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>M.</given-names> <surname>Koohmaraie</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>1999</year>. <article-title>Evaluation of slice shear force as an objective method of assessing beef longissimus tenderness</article-title>. <source>J. Anim. Sci</source>. <volume>77</volume>:<fpage>2693</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>2699</lpage>. <pub-id pub-id-type="doi">https://doi.org/10.2527/1999.77102693x</pub-id></mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r28"><mixed-citation publication-type="other"><person-group person-group-type="author"><string-name><surname>Shankaranarayana</surname> <given-names>M. L.</given-names></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>B.</given-names> <surname>Raghavan</surname></string-name>, <string-name><given-names>K. O.</given-names> <surname>Abraham</surname></string-name>, and <string-name><given-names>C. P.</given-names> <surname>Natarajan</surname></string-name></person-group>. <year>1975</year>. <article-title>Volatile sulfur compounds in food flavors</article-title>. In: <person-group person-group-type="editor"><string-name><given-names>T. E.</given-names> <surname>Furia</surname></string-name> and <string-name><given-names>N.</given-names> <surname>Bellanca</surname></string-name></person-group>, editors, Fenaroli&#x02019;s Handbook of Flavor Ingredients, <edition>2nd ed</edition>. <publisher-loc>Palo Alto, CA</publisher-loc>. p.&#x000A0;<fpage>184</fpage>&#x02013;<lpage>189</lpage>.</mixed-citation></ref><ref id="r29"><mixed-citation publication-type="other"><collab>United States Department of Agriculture (USDA)</collab>. <year>2014</year>. <publisher-name>Institutional meat purchase specifications</publisher-name>. Agric. Market. Serv., <publisher-loc>Washington, DC</publisher-loc>.</mixed-citation></ref></ref-list></back></article><?Pub Caret -2?><?Pub *0000123860?>