Options
Research Article

# Comparing Honduran and United States Consumers’ Sensory Perceptions of Honduran and U.S. Beef Loin Steaks

Authors
• M. E. Bueso (Texas Tech University)
• Andrea Garmyn (Texas Tech University)
• Travis O'Quinn (Kansas State University)
• J. C. Brooks (Texas Tech University)
• Mindy M. Brashears (Texas Tech University)
• M. F. Miller (Texas Tech University)

### Statistical analysis

All statistical tests were conducted in SAS (Version 9.3; SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC). Proximate and consumer data were analyzed using the GLIMMIX procedure and were analyzed as a 2 × 4 factorial design representing the two feeding countries and four treatments. The model for consumer rating data included the fixed effects of country and treatment and the random effect of session. Tenderness, juiciness, flavor liking, and overall acceptability were analyzed as binomial proportions using the GLIMMIX procedure of SAS. Proximate data were analyzed with a model that included the fixed effect of treatment. For all analyses, denominator degrees of freedom were calculated using the Kenward-Roger approximation. Demographic data was summarized using the PROC FREQ procedure. For all tests, the PDIFF option was used to compare treatment least squares means when the F-test for the main effects or the interaction of factors was significant (P < 0.05).

## Results and Discussion

### Proximate analysis and WBSF

Results for proximate analysis are shown in Table 1. Each component (protein, fat, and moisture) was influenced by treatment (P < 0.01). The HGRAIN beef samples had greater (P < 0.05) protein compared to all other treatments; however, no differences (P > 0.05) were observed in protein levels between TC, SEL, and HGRASS. Although protein normally remains constant with fluctuation between fat and moisture, if HGRAIN cattle were indeed older animals than all other treatments, it is possible that accumulation of sarcoplasmic and stromal proteins caused an increase in total protein in comparison to other treatments. The TC had greater (P < 0.05) fat percentage than SEL and HGRASS, but did not differ (P > 0.05) from HGRAIN. The TC had similar fat percentage to previously reported values by authors comparing top loin from various USDA quality grades; however, SEL was slightly higher than previously reported values (Corbin et al., 2015; Hunt et al., 2014; O’Quinn et al., 2012). An inverse relationship was observed between fat and moisture, which is a common finding in beef top loin (Corbin et al., 2015; Hunt et al., 2014; O’Quinn et al., 2012).

Table 1.

Least squares means for percentage of protein, fat, and moisture determined by proximate analysis and Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF)

 Trait Treatment1 SEM P-value TC SEL HGRASS HGRAIN Protein, % 21.8b 22.3b 22.2b 23.9a 0.35 0.0001 Fat, % 8.3a 4.7b 5.8b 6.5ab 0.77 0.0001 Moisture, % 68.8bc 72.0a 70.4ab 68.2c 0.62 0.0001 WBSF, kg 3.0b 3.4b 4.4ab 5.3a 0.49 0.0001
• a–cMeans in the same row having different superscripts are different (P < 0.05).

• 1TC = USDA top Choice, SEL = USDA Select, HGRASS = Honduras grass-fed, HGRAIN = Honduras grain-fed.

Results from Warner-Bratzler shear force can also be found in Table 1. The HGRAIN had greater WBSF values than TC and SEL, which did not differ (P > 0.05); however, HGRASS was similar (P > 0.05) to all other treatments. It is important to note that most cattle fed in Honduras are strongly influenced with Bos indicus genetics. These results are consistent with findings by Whipple et al. (1990), who showed that meat from Bos indicus crosses, containing similar marbling levels as Bos taurus crosses, had less tender meat. Although WBSF of HGRASS was not significantly different from TC or SEL, the average WBSF difference between HRASS and TC or SEL was 1.41 kg and 0.99 kg, respectively. The average consumer can detect a 0.5-kg difference in WBSF when consuming meat at home (Miller et al., 1995), indicating despite lack of statistical difference, these samples could differ in tenderness according to consumers. The greater WBSF values (either numerical or statistical) of Honduran beef loins steaks can probably be attributed to differences in animal age, as Honduran cattle were likely over 3 yr of age, regardless of treatment. However, age and carcass maturity were not available for any of the treatments to confirm this hypothesis.

### Consumer demographics

Demographic characteristics of Honduran and U.S. consumers can be found in Tables 2 and 3, respectively. Despite the diversity of Latin American students who attend Zamorano University, 70.7% of the participants (n = 240) were from Honduran origin (Table 2). Approximately half of the Honduran participants were students, while the remaining participants consisted of faculty, staff, and other fair-goers. Consequently, a majority of participants were under the age of 30. Participants were evenly split according to gender, a trend observed in both countries. In the U.S., a majority of participants fell within the 3 age brackets from 20 to 49 yr of age. As opposed to status (student or not), U.S. consumers were asked their level of education, and nearly all participants (97%) were high school graduates and/or had at least some post-secondary education. Most U.S. consumers were Caucasian, but Hispanic and African-American conjointly accounted for over 1/3 of participants.

Table 2.

Demographic characteristics of consumers (n = 240) for sensory panel conducted in Honduras

 Characteristic Response % of consumers Gender Male 53.75 Female 46.25 Age < 20 24.80 20–29 43.50 30–39 5.69 40–49 13.41 50–59 10.16 > 60 2.44 Current Status Student 53.25 No job 4.07 Other 42.28 Country of Origin Honduras 70.73 Guatemala 6.91 Nicaragua 3.25 El Salvador 3.25 Panama 2.85 Colombia 2.03 Ecuador 7.72 Other 3.25
Table 3.

Demographic characteristics of consumers (n = 240) for sensory panel conducted in the U.S.

 Characteristic Response % of consumers Gender Male 42.34 Female 57.66 Age < 20 6.30 20–29 31.10 30–39 20.08 40–49 20.87 50–59 11.42 > 60 10.24 Education Level Non-high School graduate 2.85 High school graduate 13.82 Some College/Technical School 39.43 College Graduate 25.61 Post graduate 18.29 Ethnic Origin African-American 12.90 Asian 1.21 Caucasian/White 57.66 Hispanic 24.60 Native American 1.61 Other 2.02

### Consumer ratings and acceptability

Results for consumer subjective ratings for tenderness, juiciness, flavor liking and overall liking are shown in Table 4. An interaction between treatment and country was detected for juiciness and overall liking (P ≤ 0.01), while treatment and country independently affected (P < 0.01) tenderness and flavor liking. Consumers scored TC more tender (P < 0.05) than all other treatments, followed by SEL, HGRASS, and HGRAIN, with a significant difference between each treatment. Despite a lack of statistical difference in WBSF values, consumers were able to detect a tenderness difference between the two Honduran treatments. However, it should be noted there was a 0.93 kg difference in the average WBSF values between the two Honduran treatments, which would typically be a detectable difference according to consumers. Similar to tenderness, TC was rated greater (P < 0.05) for flavor liking than all other treatments, followed by SEL, HGRASS, and HGRAIN, again with a significant difference between each treatment. Honduran consumers scored steaks greater (P < 0.01) for tenderness and flavor liking than U.S. consumers. Due to the significant interaction between treatment and country of feeding, juiciness ratings are shown in Fig. 1. Honduran consumers rated TC greater (P < 0.05) for juiciness than any other treatment by feeding location combination. Apart from SEL, Honduran consumers scored samples greater for juiciness than U.S. consumers. Hondurans consumers rated samples from SEL and HGRASS similarly (P > 0.05) for juiciness, while U.S. consumers did not distinguish between the 2 U.S. sourced samples or the 2 Honduran sourced samples, rating TC and SEL similarly and scoring HGRASS and HGRAIN similarly for juiciness. All samples were cooked to 77°C, which Honduran consumers may be more accustomed to, whereas cooking steaks well done in the U.S. is not as common as Central America. The interaction for overall liking between treatment and country of feeding is illustrated in Fig. 2. For each treatment, Honduran consumers scored samples greater (P < 0.05) for overall liking compared to U.S. consumers. Overall liking scores follow similar trends for previous palatability traits, where TC was most liked, followed by SEL, HGRASS, and HGRAIN, with a significant difference between each treatment. The one exception to this trend occurred for U.S. consumers that did not differentiate (P > 0.05) between the two Honduran treatments for overall liking.

Table 4.

Least square means by treatment and country of testing for consumer ratings (n = 480) of each palatability trait

 Trait Treatment1 SEM P-Value Country2 SEM P-value TRT × Country TC SEL HGRASS HGRAIN USA HON P-Value Tenderness3 6.1a 5.4b 4.3c 3.2d 0.19 0.0001 4.4b 5.2a 0.13 0.0001 0.4976 Juiciness4 5.5 4.9 4.1 3.4 0.16 0.0001 4.0 4.9 0.11 0.0001 0.0006 Flavor Liking5 5.5a 4.8b 4.0c 3.5d 0.15 0.0001 3.9b 5.0a 0.14 0.0001 0.2387 Overall Liking6 5.8 5.2 4.1 3.4 0.15 0.0001 4.0 5.2 0.14 0.0001 0.0159
• a–dMeans in the same row (and within main effect) having different superscripts are different (P < 0.05).

• 1TC = USDA top Choice, SEL = USDA Select, HGRASS = Honduras grass-fed, HGRAIN = Honduras grain-fed.

• 2USA = United States of America, HON = Honduras.

• 3Tenderness (1 = extremely tough, 2 = very tough, 3 = moderately tough, 4 = slightly tough, 5 = slightly tough, 6 = moderately tender, 7 = very tender, 8 = extremely tender).

• 4Juiciness (1 = extremely dry, 2 = very dry, 3 = moderately dry, 4 = slightly dry, 5 = slightly juicy, 6 = moderately juicy, 7 = very juicy, 8 = extremely juicy).

• 5Flavor liking (1 = extremely dislike flavor, 2 = very much dislike flavor, 3 = moderately dislike flavor, 4 = slightly dislike flavor, 5 = slightly like flavor, 6 = moderately like flavor, 7 = very much like flavor, 8 = extremely like flavor).

• 6Overall liking (1 = extremely dislike overall, 2 = very much dislike overall, 3 = moderately dislike overall, 4 = slightly dislike overall, 5 = slightly like overall, 6 = moderately like overall, 7 = very much like overall, 8 = extremely like overall).

Figure 1.

The interactive effects of treatment and country of feeding on consumer ratings of juiciness of Honduran and U.S. beef. Verbal anchors for juiciness evaluation: 1 = extremely dry, 2 = very dry, 3 = moderately dry, 4 = slightly dry, 5 = slightly juicy, 6 = moderately juicy, 7 = very juicy, 8 = extremely juicy. Treatments: TC = USDA top Choice, SEL = USDA Select, HGRASS = Honduras grass-fed, HGRAIN = Honduras grain-fed. Treatment × Country interaction: P = 0.0006.

Figure 2.

The interactive effects of treatment and country of feeding on consumer ratings of overall liking of Honduran and U.S. beef. Verbal anchors for overall liking evaluation: 1 = extremely dislike overall, 2 = very much dislike overall, 3 = moderately dislike overall, 4 = slightly dislike overall, 5 = slightly like overall, 6 = moderately like overall, 7 = very much like overall, 8 = extremely like overall. Treatments: TC = USDA top Choice, SEL = USDA Select, HGRASS = Honduras grass-fed, HGRAIN = Honduras grain-fed. Treatment × Country interaction: P = 0. 0159.

Results for acceptability of each trait are reported in Table 5. Treatment and country independently affected (P < 0.01) tenderness, juiciness, flavor, and overall acceptability. Across all palatability traits, a greater proportion of consumers found TC more acceptable (P < 0.05) than the remaining treatments, followed by SEL, HGRASS, and HGRAIN, with a significant difference between each treatment. A similar (P > 0.05) percentage of consumers indicated TC and SEL were acceptable overall; however, both U.S. treatments were found more acceptable than either Honduran treatment, while a greater (P < 0.05) percentage of consumers indicated HGRASS was more acceptable overall compared to HGRAIN. A greater proportion of Honduran consumers indicated tenderness, juiciness, flavor, and overall liking was acceptable compared to U.S. consumers (P < 0.01).

Table 5.

Percentage of consumers indicating each trait was acceptable according to treatment and country of feeding (n = 480).

 Trait Treatment1 SEM P-value Country2 SEM P-value TC SEL HGRASS HGRAIN USA HON Tenderness 91.2a 85.4b 61.4c 38.0d 0.30 0.0001 63.8b 81.3a 0.29 0.0001 Juiciness 84.3a 75.5b 55.2c 41.8d 0.31 0.0001 56.8b 74.4a 0.29 0.0001 Flavor Liking 82.4a 71.4b 54.0c 45.4d 0.31 0.0001 57.9b 71.1a 0.28 0.0010 Overall Liking 85.1a 79.9a 53.6b 40.9c 0.30 0.0001 58.0b 75.5a 0.28 0.0001
• a–dMeans in the same row (and within main effect) having different superscripts are different (P < 0.05).

• 1TC = USDA top choice, SEL = USDA select, HGRASS = Honduras grass-fed, HGRAIN = Honduras grain-fed.

• 2USA = United States of America, HON = Honduras.

Even when Sitz et al. (2005) matched U.S. strip steaks to either Canadian or Australian grass-fed strip steaks according to similar Warner-Bratzler shear force values and marbling, U.S. consumers were accustomed to U.S. domestic beef flavor and preferred that over either imported option, which aligned with the current results. Honduran consumers, however, did not show allegiance to their domestic product, rating both U.S. treatments greater for overall liking than either of the Honduran treatments. Although the fat percentage was similar between SEL and the 2 Honduran treatments, Honduran consumers still rated SEL greater for all palatability traits and preferred it more overall, indicating they preferred the flavor and tenderness of U.S. grain fed beef to that of their domestic grass fed or grain fed beef. No matter how accustomed Honduran consumers were to their domestic beef flavors, this could not overcome their preference for U.S. beef and the higher fat level of TC beef, even when cooked to a high degree of doneness. This finding aligns with previous results where U.S. consumers rated Top Choice strip steaks more palatable than Select strip steaks (Corbin et al., 2015, Hunt et al., 2014, O’Quinn et al., 2012). Delgado et al. (2005) observed an alternative trend when comparing strip steaks obtained from retailers in three major Mexican cities compared to imported USDA Choice or No Roll beef. Mexican retail strip steaks (2.7 to 3.6%) had similar fat percentage to that of No Roll U.S. beef (2.9%), and all were significantly lower than USDA Choice strip steaks (6.3%). Despite registering a lower shear force value than Northern Mexican beef, USDA Choice was rated similar for tenderness by Mexican consumers. Overall desirability for all Mexican beef, regardless of the region (North, Center, South), was similar to that of USDA Choice beef, and all were more desirable than No Roll U.S. beef. The authors attributed this phenomenon to Mexican beef consumers’ familiarization with the taste, flavor, and aroma of locally produced beef due to the rich tradition of beef consumption in Mexico.

Oliver et al. (2006) conducted a multi-national consumer study comparing beef from Uruguay to beef produced in three European countries. Consumers in Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom compared Uruguayan beef to beef from their respective countries. Cluster analysis grouped consumers in two main clusters of either preference for foreign-imported beef (Uruguayan beef), which was the predominant trend in Germany, and preference for local beef, which was more evident in Spain and the United Kingdom. These results illustrate that consumers do not necessarily prefer beef from their home country, which was the case of Honduran consumers in the current study. Realini et al. (2009) evaluated consumer acceptability for Uruguayan beef from four finishing diets (pasture, pasture with low concentrate supplement, pasture with high concentrate supplement, or concentrate) in France, United Kingdom, Spain, and Germany. European consumers tended to prefer low levels of concentrate supplementation or beef from cattle that were solely pasture-fed, indicating European consumers may gravitate toward leaner beef that is produced from grass fed cattle. The HGRASS had numerically less fat than HGRAIN, which could partially explain why Honduran and U.S. consumers preferred HGRASS over HGRAIN. However, this theory conflicts with greater consumer preference for the higher fat percentage of TC. Breed type, gender, or animal age could also play a factor since HGRASS was more tender than HGRAIN, as evidenced by lower WBSF values and greater consumer tenderness scores. However, all three traits (tenderness, juiciness, and flavor liking) differed between HGRASS and HGRAIN, but the greatest differential between these 2 treatments was observed for tenderness. Even so, the combined effort of all palatability traits likely resulted in greater overall acceptability of HGRASS over HGRAIN.

### Willingness to pay

Values for consumers’ willingness to pay for each treatment of this study are shown in Fig. 3. No interaction was detected (P > 0.05), but both treatment and country of feeding impacted willingness to pay (P < 0.01). As seen with previous palatability traits, consumers were willing to pay the most (P < 0.05) for TC, followed by SEL, HGRASS, and HGRAIN, again with a significant difference between each treatment. Honduran consumers were willing to pay more (P < 0.01) than U.S. consumers.

Figure 3.

The effects of treatment and country of feeding on the willingness to for Honduran and U.S. beef. Willingness to pay for each sample was rated as either $0,$3, $6,$10 (U.S. dollars) per 0.45 kg. For Honduran panels, willingness to pay was presented in Honduran currency equivalent to U.S. dollars. Treatments: TC = USDA top Choice, SEL = USDA Select, HGRASS = Honduras grass-fed, HGRAIN = Honduras grain-fed. Country: US = United States of America, HON = Honduras. Treatment: P = 0.0001; Country: P = 0.0001; Treatment × Country interaction: P = 0. 1645.

These results align with previous reports that U.S. consumers were willing to pay more for domestic U.S. grain finished beef when compared to imported beef from countries such as Australia, Canada, and Argentina, where finishing practices differ from those in the U.S. (Killinger et al., 2004; Sitz et al., 2005). Killinger et al. (2004) found that U.S. consumers were willing to pay more for U.S. beef compared to grass-fed Argentine beef, and they were willing to pay even more when they found domestic samples more acceptable than Argentine steaks. Likewise, Sitz et al. (2005) reported that consumers would pay $1.20/0.45 kg more for domestic strip steak compared to Australian grass-fed strip steak, but only a$0.38/0.45 kg premium for U.S. beef over Canadian beef.

### Conclusions

There is limited information discussing Honduran consumer preference regarding beef traits. Results from consumer testing in the 2 countries demonstrate that U.S. sourced beef loin steaks are preferred over Honduran beef loin steaks, regardless of the country in which testing took place. When comparing consumers between countries, Honduran panelists assigned greater scores compared to U.S. panelists. Samples were cooked to a well-done degree of doneness (77°C), which Honduran consumers were likely more accustomed to and prefer, which could help explain their elevated scores compared to U.S. consumers. There is an apparent need to improve grain finishing systems in Honduras, given the palatability of meat represented by HGRAIN was scored the lowest overall in both locations. However, consumers scored TC greater for tenderness, flavor liking, and overall liking than all other treatments, followed by SEL, HGRASS, and HGRAIN, with a significant difference between each treatment, indicating there is a market opportunity for U.S. grain finished beef, despite having a higher fat level than what Honduran consumers may be accustomed to. Overall, U.S. consumers were willing to pay less for meat samples when compared to Honduran consumers. However, consumers were also willing to pay a premium for products with greater palatability, regardless of the country of origin.