Retail ground beef packages were collected from 11 US cities—Atlanta, GA; Chicago, IL; Denver, CO; Houston, TX; Kansas City, MO; Las Vegas, NV; Los Angeles, CA; New York, NY; Philadelphia, PA; Seattle, WA; and Tampa, FL—from October 2021 through February 2022. Retail cities were chosen to represent the geographical range of the US and were sampled concurrently with the products from the retail phase of the National Beef Tenderness Survey–2022 (Gonzalez et al., 2024). Cities were sampled by North Dakota State University, Oklahoma State University, Texas A&M University, Texas Tech University, University of Florida, and University of Missouri. Representatives from the retail marketing team from the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association assisted in compiling a list of retail chains and wholesale clubs that were surveyed. For each city, the selected retail chains were chosen to represent at least one-third of the city’s total market share. Two or 3 retail chains were selected per city, with 4 stores from each being sampled, resulting in 8 to 12 retail stores per metropolitan area. To best represent the consumer demographics within a given region, sampled retail stores were equally separated to represent high, medium, and low consumer economic groups. Retail club stores were also sampled in each city, even if not included in the one-third of the overall market share of the area.

In each retail case, ground beef packages were surveyed for primal/subprimal sources, retail marketing claims, and lean points (Table 1). Additionally, ground beef packages were purchased: 51 chubs, 206 polyvinyl chloride (PVC) overwrapped trays, 109 vacuum-packaged bricks (VPB), and 18 modified atmosphere packages (MAP) for subsequent data collection and analyses. Ground beef packages were purchased from one of 2 middle-income demographics for each retail chain present in the market shares. For 5 cities (Houston, TX; Las Vegas, NV; Los Angeles, CA; New York, NY; and Philadelphia, PA), all available ground beef package types were purchased. For the remaining cities, only 90/10, 80/20, and 88/12 lean points in PVC-overwrapped trays were purchased.

Following collection, ground beef packages were shipped to the Rosenthal Meat Science and Technology Center at Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, using a standardized shipping protocol (Gonzalez et al., 2024) and stored under refrigeration (2 to 4°C). Lean points, package types, primal/subprimal sources, and brand/claims were recorded for all shipped ground beef packages. Then packages were placed into pairs by matching lean percentage and package type. Within each pair, one package was allocated for color, pH, and texture profile analysis, whereas the other package was designated for consumer panel evaluations.

Packages designated for objective and subjective color testing, pH, and texture profile analysis were removed from the store packaging, placed on white butcher paper (Dry-waxed, size 12” × 10.75”; Durable Packaging International, Wheeling, IL, USA), cut diagonally, and allowed to bloom for 30 min. A group of 6 panelists was trained following the American Meat Science Association's guidelines (King et al., 2023) for determining meat color. Panelists then evaluated the interior and exterior surfaces at the areas they considered the “best” lean color and the “worst” lean color, and for percent lean discoloration. Lean color was evaluated on an 8-point scale (1 = very light red (pale), 2 = light red, 3 = slightly bright red, 4 = bright red, 5 = very bright red, 6 = slightly dark red, 7 = dark red to reddish-tan, and 8 = tan to brown), and percent discoloration was evaluated on a 5-point scale (0 = no discoloration (0%), 1 = slight discoloration (1–20%), 2 = small discoloration (21–40%), 3 = modest discoloration (41–60%), 4 = moderate discoloration (61–80%), and 5 = extensive discoloration (81–100%)). Commission Internationale de l’Eclairge (CIE) L*a*b* color space values were measured in triplicate using a Hunter EZ MiniScan (Hunterlab; Richmond, VA, USA). Measurements of pH were taken in triplicate on each package using a handheld pH meter (Mettler Toledo Seven2go 2; Greifensee, Switzerland).

Following color and pH analyses, ground beef from each package, as well as from packages assigned to consumer sensory panel evaluations, was formed into 3 patties (∼151 g each). Patties were formed using a Game Winner adjustable hamburger press (Game Winner Inc. #07-0301-GW, Opp, AL, USA) to create a shape of approximately 11.5 cm in diameter and 0.6 cm in thickness. Patties were assigned an identification number, vacuum packaged, and stored in a −40°C freezer until subsequent analyses.

Two ground beef patties for consumer sensory evaluation and 3 for texture profile analysis were thawed at 4°C for 48 h and cooked on grated, nonstick, radiant electric charbroil grills (Star-Max Model 5136CF, St. Louis, MO, USA). Grills were preheated for 30 min to an approximate temperature of 177°C, and grill surface temperatures were monitored using an infrared thermometer (Thermoworks IRK-2 Infrared Thermometer, American Fork, UT, USA). Patties were flipped when the internal temperature reached 36°C and removed from the grill at 71°C. For the first consumer sensory panel, internal temperature of the patties was monitored by a thermocouple reader (Omega^™ HH501BT, Stamford, CT, USA) with a 0.02-cm diameter, iron-constantan Type-T thermocouple wire inserted into the geographic center of the patty. Due to difficulties with maintaining placement of the thermocouple wires during cooking, digital thermometer probes (Thermo Works ThermoPop, American Fork, UT, USA) were used for the remainder of all cooking. For each patty, pre- and post-cook weights were recorded to calculate cook yields. In addition, cooking times were calculated by recording the time each patty was placed on and removed from the grills.

Consumer panelists were recruited from the Bryan/College Station area using a Qualtrics survey (Qualtrics, Provo, UT, USA). Upon arrival at the sensory facility, panelists completed a demographic questionnaire (Table 2) and were provided with a brief overview of the sampling procedure. Nabisco Unsalted Tops Premium Saltine Crackers (Kraft Foods Global, Inc., East Hanover, NJ, USA) and double-distilled deionized water were present at each panelist station to use as palate cleansers between each sample. Panelists were seated under red lights and in divided, booth-style areas. Patties were cut into fourths, and panelists received 2 portions, with each panelist evaluating 6 samples. Patties were evaluated on a 10-point scale (10 = like extremely; 1 = dislike extremely) for overall like/dislike, flavor like/dislike, tenderness like/dislike, tenderness level, and juiciness like/dislike.

After cooking, patties for texture analysis were placed on trays and stored at 2 to 4°C for 12 to 18 h. Before analysis, patties were removed from the cooler (2 to 4°C) and allowed to equilibrate to room temperature. Two, 2.54-cm cores were removed from each patty, resulting in a total of 6 cores from each ground beef package. Cores were compressed using TMS-Pro Food Texture Analyzer (Mecmesin Ltd. #431-042-04-l01, Slinfold, UK), using a 250 N load cell, 35 back-off distance, 30% deformation, a 100 mm/min test speed, and a 0.5 trigger force with a 10-cm diameter compression plate (Mecmesin Ltd., Slinfold, UK). The hardness 1 (N), adhesion (mJ), hardness 2 (N), cohesiveness (ratio), springiness (mm), gumminess (N), and chewiness (mJ) (Bourne, 1978; American Meat Science Association, 2016) were recorded, and the average of each was taken.

Data analyses were performed using JMP^® Pro, Version 16.0.0 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA). Retail case data, packages per city, retail package information, and consumer demographic frequencies were determined using the Distribution function of JMP. Analysis of variance was performed, and least-squares means comparisons were completed using the student’s t-test function, separated at an alpha-level of < 0.05. Least-squares means comparisons were analyzed for subjective color panel, pH, objective color, sensory ballot results, texture profile analysis, and cook data. For analysis, packaging types were categorized into chub, PVC-overwrapped trays, and VPB. Additionally, lean points were categorized into 3 groups: 70–79% lean, 80–89% lean, and 90–99% lean.

Label claims, primal/subprimal source, and lean-point information collected from retail cases are presented in Table 1. In the self-service retail cases, the most prevalent label claims were natural (38.1%), hormone-free (37.7%), and antibiotic-free (33.7%). In the full-service retail cases, the most prevalent label claims were grass-fed (9.5%), hormone-free (7.9%), and antibiotic-free (6.4%). It is interesting to note that the full-service retail cases had a greater prevalence of products with no label claim present (82.5%) when compared to products in the self-service retail cases (27.6%). Issanchou (1996) found the brand to be one of the more influential factors relating to purchase decisions, and Kelly (2016) reported organic brand claims to be trending upward from 2007 (0.8%) to 2015 (5.0%). Our study shows that this trend has continued, with organic claims reported at 12.6% for both retail cases. Harr et al. (2022b) reported that adding production claims to ground beef packages may improve consumer palatability perception. Further research is needed to explore whether the claims seen in this study contribute to consumer willingness to pay and eating satisfaction.

Regarding primal/subprimal sources (Table 1), in both the full-service retail and self-service retail cases, 79.2% of the ground beef sold did not specify a primal or subprimal source. When the primal or subprimal source was identified, chuck was found most frequently (9.6%), followed by sirloin (5.6%), and round (4.5%). Ward et al. (2008) reported that consumers are more willing to pay a higher price for ground chuck. Interestingly, Harr et al. (2022a) found that primal blend type labeling had the greatest impact on palatability, and that when comparing purchasing intent across specific primal labels, consumers were more likely to purchase ground chuck.

The most prevalent frequencies of lean points in both self-service retail and full-service retail cases were 85/15 (23.6%), 80/20 (17.8%), 90/10 (14.5%), and 93/7 (12.3%). Speer et al. (2014) reported 70-77% lean points to encompass 42% of retail ground beef sales. Compared to Speer et al. (2014), our data show that lean point availability has changed and that the lean points of 80% or greater are the most prominent. It is surprising that with the inherently lower price point of the 70–79% lean ground beef, the availability of these lean points has decreased.

The brand/claim, primal/subprimal source, lean point, and package type frequencies for purchased products are reported in Table 3. At least one brand/claim was present on 63% of packages sampled. For packages with a brand/claim, the most prevalent brand/claim was natural (39.3%). Hormone-free (28.0%) was second, followed by antibiotic-free (23.8%). Of the packages purchased, 24.9% of the products sampled contained primal-specific labeling. From primal sources, chuck had the highest representation (13.5%), second was sirloin (9.4%), and third was brisket (2.1%). Of the packages purchased, 93.3% had a lean point present on the package. The most prevalent lean point was 80/20 (22.0%), followed by 90/10 (19.4%), and the least frequent was 85/15 (17.1%). Products packaged in PVC-overwrapped trays were the most predominant, making up approximately 53.9% of the purchased product.

Meat color is a well-established indicator of freshness for consumers that impacts their decision to purchase (Mancini and Hunt, 2005). Subjective color measurements for percent lean discoloration are displayed in Table 4. Ground beef packaged in PVC had greater (P < 0.05) exterior and interior discoloration when compared to the chub and VPB packages. Among lean groups, the exterior surface of the 70–79% lean had the greatest (P < 0.05) discoloration, and there were no differences (P > 0.05) among lean groups for interior discoloration. Ground beef packaged in PVC would likely be more susceptible to exterior discoloration due to the increased oxygen permeability of the overwrap film. Wang et al. (2021) reported that patties formulated with greater amounts of fat and wrapped in film for retail display would show greater rates of lipid oxidation and discoloration, which aligns with the results of this study. Greater oxygen permeability could also result in increased product exposure to oxygen and the formation of metmyoglobin or discoloration (Mancini and Hunt, 2005). Other previous studies (Reyes et al., 2022) have also established that the use of PVC packaging causes greater surface discoloration on beef products, which also aligns with the findings of this study.

There were package type × lean group interactions (P < 0.05) for exterior and interior subjective best point color ratings (Table 5). For both exterior and interior best point color, as the lean percentage increased, the color panel ratings also increased across all package types (P < 0.05). For both interior and exterior best color point, chubs with 70–79% lean had the lightest color, but were similar to PVC packages with 70–79% lean (P < 0.05). For exterior best point color, chub and PVC packages in the 90–99% lean group were darkest, while product in PVC packaging within the 90–99% lean group was darkest for exterior worst point color (P < 0.05). Understanding how packaging type influences the color of ground beef is important because color can influence purchasing decisions. Previous work by Carptenter et al. (2001) determined that when comparing the visual appearance of the different packaging systems, consumers ranked PVC, VSP, and MAP (in that order) from most visually appealing to least appealing.

The lean group with the lowest percentage of fat, 90–99% lean, presented the reddest color, ranging from slightly bright red to slightly dark red. Ground beef ranging from 80–89% lean presented in the moderately light red to slightly dark red color range. Lastly, ground beef with the highest fat percentage, 70–79% lean, displayed the lightest color, ranging from very light red to bright red. These findings show a discernment between fat percentages for panelist color scores. These results are similar to work done by Lavieri and Williams (2014), who reported 70% lean ground beef rated “higher” than both 20% lean and 10% lean. We see a similar result in the current study, where 70–79% lean points displayed the brightest red, or most desirable color, in raw ground beef.

Although results from this study do not rank scores in order from most appealing to least appealing, it is observed that packaging type and lean group can interact to directly influence interior and exterior ground beef color. This is important to consider when marketing ground beef to consumers, as the variability among these groups is vast without a clear preference that would drive consumer acceptance or purchasing decisions.

The a* and b* CIE color space values for ground beef stratified by package type and lean group are shown in Table 6. There were significant main effects among lean groups and package types. CIE color space values of a* and b* convey the optic responses of red, green, blue, and yellow colors, where a* measurements that are negative values = green, while positive values = red, and b* measurements with negative values = blue, while positive values = yellow (King et al., 2023). For both exterior and interior color space values, ground beef packaged in PVC had the lowest (P < 0.05) a* and b* color space values. These results are similar to Lavieri and Williams (2014), who reported that all PVC treatments showed lower (P < 0.05) a* values when compared to other packaging types. As PVC packaging is extremely permeable to oxygen when compared to VPB and chub packages, it is likely that the increased diffusion of oxygen through the PVC film led to the progressive formation of metmyoglobin and resulting lower a* values. Additionally, the 90–99% lean group had among the lowest b* color space values for both exterior and interior evaluations.

There were package type × lean group interactions (P < 0.05) for exterior and interior L* color space values (Table 7). CIE L* color space values represent the lightness or darkness of a sample, where 0 = black and 100 = white (King et al., 2023). Chub and PVC packages within the 70–79% lean groups reported among the greatest (P < 0.05) exterior L* color space values, whereas those that were chub and PVC in the 90–99% lean received the lowest exterior L* color space values. Similar trends were observed for interior L* color space values. This aligns with Troutt et al. (1992), who stated that L* values for lower-fat content patties had a darker color when compared to ground beef patties that have a higher fat content. As L* values are representative of light and dark values, it is logical to conclude that the higher fat contents in ground beef would add more “white” to a product, making it appear lighter in comparison, and that the oxygen availability in various packaging types would further affect these data. Interestingly, previous research by Lavieri and Williams (2014) reported that, though not always significant, the degree of lightness increased with fat content regardless of packaging system.

There were also package type × lean group interactions (P < 0.05) for exterior and interior hue and chroma color space values (Table 8). Hue angle is calculated using a* and b* values and is a descriptor of the colors around the periphery of the color space, where higher values equate to a more yellow hue, while lower values equal more red (King et al., 2023). Chroma is also calculated using a* and b* values and is related to the saturation index of a sample, where higher values equal higher saturation (King et al., 2023). Hue angles were greatest (P < 0.05) among both 70–79% lean product in chub packaging and 80–89% lean product in PVC packaging for both exterior and interior measurements. Chroma values were greatest (P < 0.05) for both exterior and interior measurements in 70–79% lean groups packaged in PVC. This is an interesting finding, as work by Mancini et al. (2022) reported that chroma and a* have a high monotonic association with the visual color of ground beef. Findings of this study showed chroma values to have an interaction (P < 0.05) between package type and lean group, while a* values were only different (P < 0.05) across package types, indicating that packaging systems can directly impact ground beef color.

The only differences (P < 0.05; data not reported in tabular form) in pH were for package type, where chub (pH = 5.87) differed (P < 0.05) from VPB (pH = 5.76). The pH of all the product samples fell into the expected ultimate pH of meat, 5.3–5.8. These findings are similar to those of Troutt et al. (1992), who reported that fat levels did not affect pH in uncooked ground beef patties.

Consumer panelists’ scores for beef palatability attributes (overall like/dislike, flavor like/dislike, tenderness like/dislike, tenderness level, and juiciness like/dislike), analyzed by package type, are reported in Table 9. Consumers rated chub and VPB products the greatest for overall like/dislike, whereas PVC-packaged products rated the lowest for overall like and flavor like/dislike (P < 0.05). For tenderness like/dislike, tenderness level, and juiciness like/dislike, consumers ranked VPB-packaged products greatest and PVC-packaged products lowest (P < 0.05). These data indicate that consumers would prefer to consume ground beef packaged in VPB or chub packaging, reporting that packages with more of a vacuum barrier had a different consumer response when compared to those of the PVC. These findings contrast with Carptenter et al. (2001), who reported no taste score differences between PVC overwrap, VPB, and MAP. Additionally, it is important to note that chub and VPB packaged products were preferred by consumers for both overall like/dislike and flavor like/dislike.

Table 10 reports consumer panelist ratings for sensory evaluations of ground beef patties separated by lean percentage groups. There were no differences (P > 0.05) across lean groups for overall like/dislike, tenderness like/dislike, tenderness level, and juiciness like/dislike. For flavor like/dislike, consumers did prefer 70–79% and 90–99% lean groups, ranking these both above 80–89% lean products (P < 0.05). These data indicate that consumers cannot discern a preference between ground beef products of varying lean percentages.

Texture profile analysis least-squares means for gumminess, chewiness, hardness 1, adhesion, hardness 2, cohesiveness, and springiness are reported in Tables 11 and 12. Table 11 displays least-squares means for the interaction of package type × lean group for gumminess and chewiness. Gumminess is the energy required to chew a semi-solid food until the point it can be swallowed and is measured by multiplying cohesiveness by hardness (Johnson, 2015). Chewiness is defined as “the energy required to chew solid food until it can be swallowed” and is the product of gumminess × springiness (Johnson, 2015). Ground beef of 90–99% lean packaged in PVC overwrap had the greatest means for gumminess, while the lowest mean was reported for 70–79% lean in chub packages, which was similar to 70–79% lean from VPB packages (P < 0.05). Similar results were seen for chewiness values, where 90–99% packaged in PVC overwrap had the greatest means for chewiness, and the lowest means were reported for 70–79% lean in chub packages and 70–79% lean from VPB packages (P < 0.05).

Least-squares means of main effects for hardness 1, adhesion, hardness 2, cohesiveness, and springiness are reported in Table 12. Among package types, hardness 1, hardness 2, and cohesiveness measurements of PVC overwrapped trays showed the greatest means (P < 0.05). Greater hardness values indicate that a greater amount of force was needed in-between the first and second deformation or “bite,” while cohesiveness is a measure of how much a food changes in shape when compressed (Johnson, 2015). Ground beef in PVC overwrapped trays also reported the lowest adhesion values, or what may also be referred to as “stickiness” (Johnson, 2015), when compared to the other 2 packaging types (P < 0.05). There were no differences (P > 0.05) across package types for springiness measurements. Among lean groups, ground beef from 90–99% lean showed the greatest means for both hardness 1 and cohesiveness measurements (P < 0.05). There were no differences across lean groups for adhesion, hardness 2, or springiness values (P > 0.05).

The combination of having the greatest means for hardness 1 in conjunction with the greatest means for gumminess and cohesiveness indicates that products with 90–99% lean had a tough first and second bite and required the most energy to chew when compared to the other package types. The data from this study show similar results to Wilfong et al. (2016), who determined that texture profile analysis indicated cohesiveness, hardness, gumminess, and chewiness generally decreased as the fat level of ground beef increased.

Least-squares means for sensory and texture profile analysis, cook yields, and times are recorded in Table 13. For both sensory and texture analysis patties, those from 90–99% lean ground beef showed the greatest cook yields, followed by 80–89% lean, and 70–79% lean (P < 0.05). These results are to be expected, as lean groups with higher fat percentages would see more loss in the form of fat during cooking. Similar results were reported by Troutt et al. (1992) for ground beef patties with 30% fat, which had the greatest loss, and as fat decreased, so did cook loss. However, Cross et al. (1980) reported that total cook loss was not affected by fat level. There were no differences in cook time among package type or lean group for either group of patties (P < 0.05).

Ground beef makes up a large portion of the American beef market, representing 46% of total US retail beef market consumption (Schulz, 2021). It is established that consumer purchasing trends influence retail marketing decisions. As ground beef continues to become a more mainstream product, it was necessary to survey ground beef products found in the retail market, evaluating factors such as label/brand claims, objective and subjective color, general consumer sensory evaluation, and texture profile analysis based on different lean percentages and package types. In this study, the most prevalent lean endpoints available on the retail shelves were 85/15 and 80/20. Ground beef with “natural” claims appeared most often in grocery stores across the US, and of the primal and subprimal sources present on the packages, product sourced from the chuck had the highest availability when compared to the sirloin or round.

Ramanathan et al. (2022) evaluated the economic loss associated with beef discoloration and concluded that the US beef industry loses $3.73 billion annually due to discoloration of products. With fresh meat color having such an influence on how consumers purchase products, it was vital to run a trained color panel to determine the subjective color results when comparing the different lean percentages and different package types. As might be expected, as fat content decreased and lean increased, ground beef displays a brighter, redder colored product.

Consumer evaluations determined that when comparing lean percentage groups, consumers do not prefer any one lean group overall. Although PVC is among the most popular package types, representing 53.65% of products available on the shelves, consumer panelists ranked it the lowest for overall liking. Our results indicate that consumers prefer a VPB, or chub-packaged ground beef, which is an important point to consider when observing what is available in the retail sector.