Introduction
Consumers’ willingness to pay for beef is closely linked to eating satisfaction, which is influenced by overall palatability. Recent studies have reaffirmed that the key components of beef palatability are tenderness, juiciness, and flavor (O’Quinn et al., 2018; Smith and Carpenter, 1974). These attributes significantly impact consumer preferences and their willingness to pay more for higher-quality meat (Lyford et al., 2010; Polkinghorne and Thompson, 2010). Beef tenderness has been widely recognized as a major determinant of overall eating satisfaction and consumer acceptability (Miller et al., 2001; Shackelford et al., 2001; Miller, 2020). The cooking method and muscle used can influence beef tenderness (Nair et al., 2019; Vierck et al., 2021). Typically, it is recommended to cook tough muscles at relatively low temperatures in moist environments (with humidity) for a long time to improve tenderness. Such moist heat cooking methods can reduce the amount of cooking loss (Rowe and Kerth, 2013), improve collagen solubility (Dominguez-Hernandez et al., 2018), and directly impact juiciness (Maughan et al., 2012). In addition to tenderness, beef flavor can be equally or even more important than tenderness for overall consumer eating satisfaction (O’Quinn et al., 2018; Felderhoff et al., 2020; Miller, 2020), and can be influenced by many factors, including the cooking method (Miller et al., 2022). Further, Vierck et al. (2021) demonstrated that different dry heat finishing cookery methods following a moist heat preparation method significantly impact the flavor profile and consumer ratings of beef strip loin steaks, including tenderness.
One cooking method gaining popularity in the food service industry is sous vide, which involves vacuum sealing raw meat in a heat-stable package and immersing it in a water bath under controlled temperatures for an extended period (Schellekens, 1996). Sous vide cooking offers numerous advantages over conventional cooking methods, including precise temperature control, potential cost savings in labor and materials, and reduced cooking loss (Baldwin, 2012; James and Yang, 2012; Roldán et al., 2014; Alahakoon et al., 2018; Ismail et al., 2022; Thathsarani et al., 2022). Additionally, several studies have demonstrated that the combination of low-temperature and extended-time use in sous vide can improve the tenderness and different sensory attributes of low-value or tougher meat cuts (Mortensen et al., 2012; Christensen et al., 2013; Sun et al., 2019; Bhat et al., 2020; Naqvi et al., 2021b; Naqvi et al., 2021c; Gámbaro et al., 2023). Typical sous vide processing temperatures range from 50°C to 65°C (Ismail et al., 2022). At these temperatures, collagen in meat begins to denature, converting it into gelatin, which may contribute to the increased tenderness (Baldwin, 2012). However, the effects of sous vide cooking on tenderness and collagen solubility vary based on the specific muscle used and the temperature–time combination (Baldwin, 2012; Purslow, 2018; Ismail et al., 2022). In addition to its culinary benefits, sous vide cooking is advantageous for enhancing the shelf life of cooked meat products by reducing microbial loads and limiting the risk of contamination after thermal processing (Baldwin, 2012; Bıyıklı et al., 2020; Yang et al., 2020; Haghighi et al., 2021; Ismail et al., 2022; Thathsarani et al., 2022).
In the U.S., the Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS) provides cooking guidelines for the safe production of ready-to-eat meat and poultry products in Appendix A (FSIS, 2021). When low temperatures are used, long dwell times are usually needed to achieve the lethality of certain pathogenic microorganisms (FSIS, 2021). Biceps femoris is a leaner and less tender muscle located in the beef round (Stolowski et al., 2006) and is typically cooked using slow, moist heat cooking. However, there are only limited studies that have examined the impact of different sous vide temperature and time treatment combinations on the palatability of biceps femoris. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the palatability characteristics of beef biceps femoris following different sous vide temperature and time combinations. We hypothesized that increasing sous vide cooking temperature while reducing dwell time would maintain the palatability of beef biceps femoris steaks. This will enable food service processors to optimize cooking parameters without compromising the eating experience.
Materials and Methods
Sample preparation and sous vide processing
The samples were processed in a commercial sous vide production facility according to standard industry practices. Previously vacuum packaged and aged (37 d postmortem) beef biceps femoris subprimals (USDA Choice) were sprayed with 875 mg/kg of sodium chlorite (Keeper Professional, Bio-Cide, Norman, OK, USA) as part of the standard operating procedure in the production facility. Each subprimal was then fabricated into 1.6-cm thick slices, following the processors’ specifications, using a vertical slicer (Graselli Model NSL600.BI). The sliced biceps femoris were weighed to a target weight of 4.5 kg using a scale (Rice Lake RLP-15S Versa-Portion scale; Model 115128), and packaged into thermal resistant bags (O2 transmission 24 h/23°C 1.1 ss/sq. m, Winpak, Winnipeg, MB, Canada) and sealed using a Multivac R245 thermoforming machine (Multivac Sepp Haggenmüller SE & Co. KG, Wolfertschwenden, Germany). Each package represented one replicate, and 16 packages (n = 16) were randomly assigned to one of 6 treatments (i.e., a total of 96 samples). Samples were cooked in custom-made sous vide tanks at the commercial production facility until they reached the target temperature (56.1°C [151 min] or 61.7°C [198 min]) and held for the specific dwell time assigned to each treatment (1A: 56.1°C and 71 min; 1B: 56.1°C and 150 min; 1C: 56.1°C and 240 min; 2A: 61.7°C and 8 min; 2B: 61.7°C and 150 min; 2C: 61.7°C and 240 min). Shorter times for each temperature used were selected based on Appendix A for minimum dwell time for lethality (i.e., 71 min for 56.1°C and 8 min for 61.7°C; FSIS, 2021). After completion of each treatment dwell time, samples were chilled to <4°C in the custom-made sous vide tanks. Chilled packages were boxed and transported under refrigeration to the Department of Animal Sciences at Colorado State University. After arrival, samples were stored under refrigeration (3°C) until analysis.
Two randomly selected packages per treatment were evaluated each day over 8 d, resulting in all 16 packages per treatment being evaluated during the study. On each day, the package was weighed on a scale (CAS SW-1 Series, East Rutherford, NJ, USA), and the meat was aseptically removed from the package and placed in a sanitized bowl to obtain the weight of the meat without the packaging for determination of product cooking loss. Two 1.6-cm thick steaks from each package were randomly selected and cut in half for internal cooked color assessment. Additionally, 2 other steaks were randomly selected from each package, one for shear force and one for sensory analysis.
Cooking loss
Cooking loss for each sample was determined by taking the weight of the whole package (total weight), the weight of the meat without packaging (meat weight), and the weight of the dry package. The cooking loss was expressed as a percentage relative to total weight using the following formula:
Internal cooked color evaluation
Samples designated for internal cooked color evaluation were cut in half and allowed to oxygenate for more than 3 min (Beyer et al., 2024). The instrumental color measurements were obtained with a portable HunterLab MiniScan LabScan EZ4500 colorimeter (Hunter Associates Laboratory, Reston, VA, USA) equipped with a 12.5-mm measurement port (2.54-cm diameter aperture, illuminant A, and 10° standard observer). The instrument was standardized before each use, using standard tiles. Color measurements (3 technical replicate readings) for CIE L* (lightness), a* (redness), and b* (yellowness) were obtained from the internal section. The technical replicate readings were averaged for statistical analysis.
Warner-Bratzler shear force
Samples were randomly assigned for Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF) analysis using a modification of the American Meat Science Association (AMSA) guidelines (AMSA, 2015), considering the thickness of the steaks (1.6 cm). The samples were trimmed of visible connective tissue to expose muscle fiber orientation and cut into strips (1 cm2 × cooked steak thickness) parallel to the muscle fiber. At least 6 strips from each sample were sheared once, perpendicular to the muscle fibers, using a universal testing machine (Instron Corp., Canton, MA, USA) fitted with a Warner-Bratzler shear head (crosshead speed: 200 mm/min, load cell capacity: 100 kg). Peak shear force was recorded, and values from the strips taken from each sample were averaged to obtain a single WBSF value for each sample. The average peak shear force of the strips was used for statistical analysis.
Trained sensory evaluation
The Colorado State University Institutional Review Board (IRB) reviewed the procedures (IRB#4408) used in this study. Each sample for sensory evaluation was identified with a random 3-digit number. The samples were randomly assigned to one of the 8 panels. In each panel session, 12 samples were evaluated per panelist, with 2 samples from each of the 6 sous vide cooking temperature and time combinations. Samples were also randomly assigned a serving order within each panel. Before evaluations, panelists were trained for 2 weeks with 5 training sessions per week to evaluate beef flavor, tenderness, juiciness, sourness, and metallic flavor on a 15-point continuous scale. Panel anchors for these attributes were trained with references set by Adhikari et al. (2011) and the training specifications indicated in Table 1. A score of zero indicated no beef flavor, no tenderness, no juiciness, no sour or metallic notes; a 6 indicated slightly intense beef flavor, slightly intense tenderness, slightly intense juiciness, slightly intense sour or metallic notes; a 10 indicated very intense beef flavor, very intense tenderness, very intense juiciness, very intense sour or metallic notes; and a 15 indicated extremely intense beef flavor, extremely intense tenderness, extremely intense juiciness, extremely intense sour or metallic notes. Each steak was evaluated by a trained sensory panel of at least 6 qualified panelists, and all data were collected using Qualtrics software (Provo, UT, USA) with a phone or laptop.
Definitions and references for beef flavor attributes and intensities1
| Attribute | Definition | Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Beef flavor | Amount of beef flavor identity in the sample | Swanson® beef broth = 5.0 (aroma and flavor) 80% lean ground beef = 7.0 (aroma and flavor) Beef brisket = 11.0 (aroma and flavor) |
| Tenderness | Refers to the ease perceived during masticating | 9.0: Eye of round 160°F 14.0: Tenderloin 150°F |
| Juiciness | Refers to the sensation produced by meats with higher levels of juices | 2.0: Carrot 8.0: Cucumber 10.0: Apple 15.0: Watermelon |
| Metallic | The impression of slightly oxidized metal, such as iron, copper, and silver spoons | USDA Choice strip steak = 4.0 (aroma and flavor) Dole® canned pineapple juice = 6.0 (aroma and flavor) |
| Sour | Fundamental taste factor associated with citric acid | 0.015% citric acid solution = 1.5 (flavor) 0.050% citric acid solution = 3.5 (flavor) |
| Flavor Intensities | Universal scale for flavor intensities | 2.0: Soda flavor in saltine crackers 5.0: Apple flavor in Motts® apple sauce 10.0: Grape flavor in Welch’s® grape juice 12.0: Cinnamon flavor in Big Red® chewing gum |
Intensity scale: 0 = none; 2 = barely detectable; 4 = identifiable but not very intense; 6 = slightly intense; 8 = moderately intense; 10 = intense; 15 = extremely intense.
Steaks were vacuum packaged and placed in a circulator water bath (Isotemp 6200 H24, Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA) set at 55°C for 30 min to reheat them. These samples were kept in the water bath (55°C) to maintain a temperate temperature throughout the sensory panel. Samples were cut into 1.9-cm2 squares and served in the predetermined serving order. Panelists were provided unsalted saltine crackers (Nabisco Unsalted Tops Premium; Mondelez Global LLC, East Hanover, NJ, USA), deionized water, and unsweetened apple juice as palate cleansers and were instructed to use them between samples.
Statistical analysis
All statistical analyses were conducted in R statistical software version 4.0.3 (R Core Team, 2020). A complete randomized design was used to evaluate the effect of each treatment on quality and sensory attributes. The marginal means were calculated using the emmeans package (Lenth, 2020). The differences between means were reported using a significance level of α = 0.05 with Tukey’s multiple comparison adjustment.
Results
Cooking loss
The percentage of cooking loss by treatment (i.e., sous vide cooking temperature and dwell time) is shown in Figure 1. The different cooking temperatures and dwell times affected cooking loss (P < 0.0001). The cooking loss percentage increased as temperature and dwell time increased (P < 0.0001). Specifically, samples from treatment 2C (61.7°C and 240 min) had the highest (P = 0.0001) percentage of cooking loss (22.8%), whereas those from treatment 1A (56.1°C and 71 min) had the lowest (P = 0.0001) percentage of cooking loss (14.5%). Within the 3 dwell times of the 56.1°C treatment, the percentage of cooking loss of samples with a dwell time of 150 and 240 min was similar (P = 0.5019) but greater (P < 0.05) than that of the 71 min dwell time samples; however, for those samples cooked at 61.7°C, as dwell time increased (8, 150, 240 min), cooking loss percentage increased (P < 0.0001).
Effect of sous vide cooking temperature and dwell time (1A: 56.1°C and 71 min; 1B: 56.1°C and 150 min; 1C: 56.1°C and 240 min; 2A: 61.7°C and 8 min; 2B: 61.7°C and 150 min; 2C: 61.7°C and 240 min) on the percentage of cooking loss of biceps femoris steaks (n = 16). Different letters (a–e) indicate significant differences (P < 0.05). Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.
Internal cooked color
Internal cooked surface lightness (L*), redness (a*), and yellowness (b*) for all treatments are presented in Table 2. No treatment effect was observed (P = 0.4398) for L* values of samples. However, treatment influenced a* and b* values of the samples (P < 0.05). In general, the internal surface redness (a* values; Table 2) of samples decreased with an increase in temperature and dwell time. Specifically, samples cooked at 61.7°C had lower (P = 0.0001) a* values than those cooked at 56.1°C, regardless of the dwell time. For samples cooked at 56.1°C, there was a gradual decrease in a* values with an increase in dwell time. Specifically, the 71-min dwell time samples (treatment 1A) had greater (P = 0.0036) redness than the 240-min dwell time samples (treatment 1C). However, the 150-min dwell time samples (treatment 1B) had similar (P ≥ 0.05) redness to both the 71-min and 240-min dwell time samples. Similar to surface redness, generally, the yellowness (b* values) of samples decreased (P = 0.0001) as temperature and dwell time increased (Table 2). Specifically, samples from treatments 2B and 2C had lower (P < 0.05) b* values than those from treatments 1A and 1B, but similar (P > 0.05) to those of treatment 1C, whereas 2A was lower (P = 0.0132) than 1A.
Effect of sous vide cooking temperature and dwell time on internal surface lightness (L* value), redness (a* value), and yellowness (b* value) of biceps femoris steaks (n = 16)
| Parameter | Cook Temperature and Dwell Time Treatments | SEM | P Value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1A | 1B | 1C | 2A | 2B | 2C | |||
| L* | 52.3a | 50.5a | 50.9a | 51.3a | 51.1a | 50.6a | 0.7 | 0.4398 |
| a* | 26.5a | 25.1ab | 23.3b | 20.3c | 19.2c | 18.8c | 0.6 | <0.0001 |
| b* | 21.9a | 21.0ab | 19.7abc | 19.0bc | 18.4c | 18.3c | 0.6 | 0.0001 |
1A: 56.1°C, 71 min; 1B: 56.1°C, 150 min; 1C: 56.1°C, 240 min; 2A: 61.7°C, 8 min; 2B: 61.7°C, 150 min; 2C: 61.7°C, 240 min; SEM: standard error of the mean.
Least-squares means with different superscripts within a row are different (P < 0.05).
WBSF
The WBSF values are shown in Figure 2. No (P = 0.0684) treatment effect was observed for the WBSF values of the steaks. The highest numerical WBSF value was 4.47 kg and the lowest was 3.64 kg for samples from treatments 1A and 1C, respectively.
Effect of sous vide cooking temperature and dwell time 1A: 56.1°C and 71 min; 1B: 56.1°C and 150 min; 1C: 56.1°C and 240 min; 2A: 61.7°C and 8 min; 2B: 61.7°C and 150 min; 2C: 61.7°C and 240 min) on WBSF (kg) of biceps femoris steaks (n = 16). Error bars represent the standard error of the mean.
Trained sensory evaluation
The results of trained sensory evaluation of the steaks for beef flavor, tenderness, juiciness, sourness, and metallic flavors is presented in Table 3. The treatment effect was significant (P = 0.0337) only for tenderness and juiciness. Tenderness scores for treatment 1C steaks were higher (P = 0.0267) than those of treatment 2A steaks but were similar (P ≥ 0.05) to the other treatments (1A, 1B, 2B, and 2C). Juiciness scores of treatments 1B and 1C steaks were higher (P < 0.05) than 2A steaks; however, they were not different (P ≥ 0.05) from treatments 1A, 2B, and 2C. All sample scores for sour and metallic flavors were below 2, described as “barely detectable,” irrespective of treatment.
Effect of sous vide cooking temperature and dwell time on trained sensory panel attributes of biceps femoris steaks (n = 16)
| Attribute | Cook Temperature and Dwell Time Treatments | SEM | P Value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1A | 1B | 1C | 2A | 2B | 2C | |||
| Beef flavor1 | 7.2a | 7.0a | 7.4a | 7.2a | 7.4a | 6.7a | 0.4 | 0.6055 |
| Tenderness1 | 10.2ab | 11.0ab | 11.4a | 9.1b | 11.0ab | 10.6ab | 0.5 | 0.0336 |
| Juiciness1 | 5.1ab | 5.9a | 6.4a | 4.4b | 5.8ab | 5.6ab | 0.4 | 0.0034 |
| Sour1 | 0.9a | 0.9a | 0.5a | 0.6a | 0.7a | 0.7a | 0.2 | 0.5320 |
| Metallic1 | 1.2a | 0.9a | 0.6a | 0.8a | 1.0a | 1.1a | 0.2 | 0.3129 |
1A: 56.1°C, 71 min; 1B: 56.1°C, 150 min; 1C: 56.1°C, 240 min; 2A: 61.7°C, 8 min; 2B: 61.7°C, 150 min; 2C: 61.7°C, 240 min; SEM: standard error of the mean.
Intensity scale: 0 = none; 2 = barely detectable; 4 = identifiable but not very intense; 6 = slightly intense; 8 = moderately intense; 10 = intense; 15 = extremely intense.
Least-squares means with different superscripts within a row are different (P < 0.05).
Discussion
Several studies have evaluated the effect of sous vide cooking on physicochemical and sensory characteristics of beef (Mortensen et al., 2012; Christensen et al., 2013; Alahakoon et al., 2018; Ismail et al., 2019; Naqvi et al., 2021a; Naqvi et al., 2021b; Naqvi et al., 2021c; Gámbaro et al., 2023). These studies have shown that sous vide cooking meat at low temperatures for an extended time could improve the sensory attributes of lower-quality meat muscles. However, results can vary with the cooking parameters (temperature and time) and the meat cut used. The current study assessed sensory characteristics, including cooking loss, internal cooked color, WBSF, and trained sensory evaluations of beef biceps femoris following sous vide cooking.
Cooking loss is of great economic importance to the food service industry since it indicates a reduction in yield and loss of moisture, which can change the textural quality of meat (Purslow et al., 2016). During cooking, the water-holding capacity of proteins decreases due to protein degradation, which can result in water being expelled from the muscle (Lepetit et al., 2000; Kondjoyan et al., 2013). Slow-cooking conditions, such as sous vide, can minimize fluid loss, as meat is cooked in moist conditions (James and Yang, 2012; Roldán et al., 2014). As treatment temperature and time increased, an increase in percent cooking loss was observed in the current study (Figure 1). These results are in agreement with previous studies that have also shown that, as the temperature and cooking time increase, the cooking loss percentage could also increase (Vaudagna et al., 2002; García-Segovia et al., 2007; Christensen et al., 2011; Roldán et al., 2013; Ismail et al., 2019; Naqvi et al., 2021b; Naqvi et al., 2021c). For example, Naqvi et al. (2021c) evaluated the effect of sous vide cooking temperature (55°C, 65°C or 75°C) and time (1 h, 8 h, or 18 h) on cooking loss of beef biceps femoris and reported that as cooking temperature and time increased, cooking loss increased. Similarly, in the current study, samples from treatment 1A, cooked at the lowest temperature and with the shortest dwell time at that temperature, had lower (P < 0.05) cooking loss compared with all other treatments. On the other hand, samples from treatment 2C, cooked at the highest temperature and for the longest dwell time, had the greatest (P < 0.05) cooking loss.
The internal color of cooked beef is an indicator of its degree of doneness, which is dependent on the highest internal temperature reached (Baldwin, 2012; Ismail et al., 2022). Myoglobin is the main protein responsible for both fresh and cooked meat color (Suman et al., 2016). The brown color formed in cooked meat results from myoglobin denaturation due to an increase in temperature. In general, during sous vide cooking, the cooking temperature will play a more prominent role than the cooking time when evaluating the changes in color (Ismail et al., 2022). In the current study, the a* (redness) and b* (yellowness) values of cooked steaks were influenced by treatment, whereas L* values (lightness) were not affected by the treatments evaluated (Table 2). On the contrary, previous studies have reported either an increase or a decrease in L* values of sous vide cooked meat with different cooking temperatures and times (García-Segovia et al., 2007; Roldán et al., 2013; Alahakoon et al., 2018). For example, Alahakoon et al. (2018) observed a decrease in L* value of beef deep pectoralis samples when temperature increased (60, 65, and 70°C), whereas an increase in L* value was observed when cooking time increased (24, 48, and 72 h) within the same temperature. This difference in L* observed between our study and previous studies might be due to the difference in the muscle type, which could be more influential than cooking time or temperature (Ismail et al., 2022).
In the current study, the internal cooked redness (a*) of samples cooked at the highest temperature was lower than those cooked at the lowest temperature. Additionally, internal a* values of samples cooked at 56.1°C decreased as treatment dwell time increased (Table 2). Typically, when the temperature rises, myoglobin denaturation increases (King and Whyte, 2006). However, the thermal denaturation rate also depends on the myoglobin redox form (Hunt et al., 1999). Since the internal cooked color of vacuum-packaged steaks was evaluated in the current study, myoglobin in the steak interior could be in the deoxymyoglobin form (the predominant redox form in vacuum-packaged meat) during the thermal processing, which is the least sensitive among the myoglobin redox forms to heat denaturation (Hunt et al., 1999; King and Whyte, 2006). This could lead to the higher a* values observed in steaks cooked at 56.1°C compared to 61.7°C. Even at 61.7°C, there was relatively high redness because while myoglobin denaturation starts at 55°C, deoxymyoglobin is not fully denatured until 75°C (Hunt et al., 1999). In agreement with these results, Ismail et al. (2019) reported that beef semitendinosus steaks sous vide cooked for a shorter time (6 h) at a lower temperature (60°C) had a higher internal surface redness than those samples cooked at the same temperature for 12 h or at higher temperatures (65°C, 70°C, and 75°C). Furthermore, Gámbaro et al. (2023) evaluated the interior color of beef hind shank sous vide cooked at different temperatures (55°C and 65°C) and times (5 h, 8 h, 12 h, and 24 h). These authors reported that the a* values of samples cooked at 55°C decreased with an increase in cooking time and were higher than all samples cooked at 65°C, regardless of the cooking time (Gámbaro et al., 2023). Similar observations were also reported by Vaudagna et al. (2002) for beef semitendinosus sous vide cooked at 50°C, 60°C, or 65°C up to 390 min, and Roldán et al. (2013) for lamb loins sous vide cooked at 60°C, 70°C, or 80°C for 6 h, 12 h, or 24 h; however, these studies showed no significant changes in the redness of samples held for a longer time at the same temperature, which could be due to the different muscles used.
The WBSF values of steaks were similar regardless of the cooking treatment, even though there were some numerical differences between the treatments in the current study (Figure 2). This lack of statistical difference could be due to the relatively large variation within samples (standard deviation ranged from 0.7 to 1.3) for the biceps femoris muscle. One of the key advantages of sous vide cooking is the improvement in tenderness of low-value tougher muscle cuts (Alahakoon et al., 2018; Ismail et al., 2019). Several previous studies have found significant changes in WBSF values of beef muscles depending on cooking temperature and time (Vaudagna et al., 2002; Christensen et al., 2013; Alahakoon et al., 2018; Ismail et al., 2019; Bhat et al., 2020; Naqvi et al., 2021a; Naqvi et al., 2021b; Naqvi et al., 2021c; Karki et al., 2022; Gámbaro et al., 2023). This improvement is attributed to the breakdown of connective tissue as a result of protein denaturation or collagen solubilization caused by prolonged heating (Dominguez-Hernandez et al., 2018).
Beef palatability is of great importance when evaluating cooking methods, and it is generally attributed to juiciness, tenderness, and flavor (Smith and Carpenter, 1974). In this study, trained panelists assessed the intensity of beef flavor, tenderness, juiciness, and the presence of sour and metallic flavors in beef samples. The results indicated that the different treatments did not significantly affect the intensity of beef, sour, and metallic flavors in the steaks. The similar scores in flavor attributes across treatments could be attributed to the low-temperature moist cooking method, which likely does not induce substantial differences in flavor profiles compared to dry heat methods (Miller et al., 2019; Vierck et al, 2021). Furthermore, all products in this study were of the same quality grade (USDA Choice) and were uniformly wet-aged. Similarly, Naqvi et al. (2021b) evaluated the beef flavor and metallic flavor of biceps femoris steaks sous vide cooked at 65°C for 8 h or 12 h using trained panels and reported no differences between the treatments.
Tenderness is of great importance in overall eating satisfaction and consumers’ acceptability of beef (Miller et al., 2001; Shackelford et al., 2001). In the current study, the highest tenderness score was for samples from treatment 1C (56.1°C and 240 min), which agrees with the WBSF results. Likewise, Naqvi et al. (2021b) observed an increased tenderness rating of beef samples cooked for 12 h compared to those cooked for 8 h at 65°C. Mortensen et al. (2012) also reported an increase in tenderness scores with longer cook time (3 h, 6 h, 9 h, or 12 h) for semitendinosus from young Holstein bulls (12–13 months) sous vide cooked at different temperatures (56°C, 58°C, and 60°C) with the highest rating observed for those samples cooked at 56°C for 12 h. Additionally, Gámbaro et al. (2023) reported that the tenderness scores within the same temperature increased as cooking time (5 h, 8 h, 12 h, or 24 h) increased, with samples cooked for 24 h at 55°C and 65°C having the highest rating. However, there was no difference in tenderness within a temperature in the current study, and differences between results could be due to differences in the beef cuts used (shank vs. biceps femoris in the current study) and the cooking conditions.
Juiciness is an essential sensory attribute positively correlated with consumer preference, and it is defined as the sensation produced by meats with higher levels of juices (Maughan et al., 2012). Similar to the tenderness scores, there were only minor differences in the juiciness among the treatments, with samples from treatment 1C (56.1°C and 240 min) having the highest score. However, the juiciness score from the treatment 1C samples was statistically different only from the 2A (61.7°C and 8 min) samples. This contrasts with the cooking loss results (Figure 1), in which an increase in cooking loss was observed as the treatment temperature and time increased. These results, where perceived juiciness increased as perceived tenderness increased, could be due to the halo effect of tenderness and the correlation between these sensory attributes (Miller, 2020). Similarly, Naqvi et al. (2021b) found no differences in the juiciness rating of beef biceps femoris samples cooked at 65°C for 8 h or 12 h. On the other hand, Gámbaro et al. (2023) observed a numerical increase in juiciness when cooking time increased for those samples cooked at 55°C. However, samples cooked at 65°C had lower juiciness scores than those cooked at 55°C.
Conclusions
Cooking loss, tenderness, and flavor are critical factors when evaluating different sous vide cooking temperatures and times. In the current study, the cooking loss increased while the internal surface redness decreased with an increase in sous vide temperature and time. There was no difference in WBSF between the treatments, whereas samples from treatment 1C (56.1°C and 240 min) had higher perceived tenderness scores than treatment 2A (61.7°C and 8 min) samples. Moreover, no off-flavor (sour or metallic) was detected with any cooking temperature–time combinations. These results suggest that sous vide processors could alter the cooking temperatures without negatively affecting palatability. However, it is essential to consider the cooking loss associated with temperature–time combinations. Overall, the result of this study provides food service processors an option to have flexibility in cooking times, allowing them to optimize production efficiency and energy usage. Although this study focused on biceps femoris, future studies should investigate other tough, low-value muscles, and explore additional cooking time-temperature combinations.
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge Colorado Premium for providing research funding and support. This work was also partially supported by the USDA National Institute of Food and Agriculture, Multi-State Hatch project COL00276B (W5177). The use of trade names in this publication does not imply endorsement or criticism by Colorado State University of those or similar products not mentioned.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.
Author Contributions
Sara V. Gonzalez: methodology, formal analysis, writing, original draft preparation, visualization. Tyler W. Thompson: methodology. Ifigenia Geornaras: methodology, writing, review, and editing. Robert J. Delmore: methodology. John A. Scanga: conceptualization, funding acquisition, supervision. Mahesh N Nair: conceptualization, funding acquisition, writing, review, editing, supervision, project administration.
Literature Cited
Adhikari, K., E. Chambers IV, R. Miller, L. Vazquez-Araujo, N. Bhumiratana, and C. Philip. 2011. Development of a lexicon for beef flavor in intact muscle. J. Sens. Stud. 26:413–420. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-459X.2011.00356.x
Alahakoon, A. U., I. Oey, P. Bremer, and P. Silcock. 2018. Optimization of sous vide processing parameters for pulsed electric fields treated beef briskets. Food Bioprocess Tech. 11:2055–2066. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-018-2155-9
American Meat Science Association (AMSA). 2015. Research guidelines for cookery, sensory evaluation, and instrumental tenderness measurements of meat. Version 2.0. Am. Meat Sci. Assoc. Champaign, IL.
Baldwin, D. E. 2012. Sous vide cooking: A review. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science 1:15–30. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2011.11.002
Beyer, E. S., L. K. Decker, E. G. Kidwell, A. L. McGinn, M. D. Chao, M. D. Zumbaugh, J. L. Vipham, and T. G. O’Quinn. 2024. Evaluation of fresh and frozen beef strip loins of equal aging periods for palatability traits. Meat Muscle Biol. 8:16903, 1–13. doi: https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb.16903
Bhat, Z. F., J. D. Morton, X. Zhang, S. L. Mason, and A. E.-D. A. Bekhit. 2020. Sous-vide cooking improves the quality and in-vitro digestibility of semitendinosus from culled dairy cows. Food Res. Int. 127:108708. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2019.108708
Bıyıklı, M., A. Akoğlu, Ş. Kurhan, and İ. T. Akoğlu. 2020. Effect of different sous vide cooking temperature-time combinations on the physicochemical, microbiological, and sensory properties of turkey cutlet. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science 20:100204. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2020.100204
Christensen, L., P. Ertbjerg, M. D. Aaslyng, and M. Christensen. 2011. Effect of prolonged heat treatment from 48°C to 63°C on toughness, cooking loss and color of pork. Meat Sci. 88:280–285. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.12.035
Christensen, L., P. Ertbjerg, H. Løje, J. Risbo, F. W. J. van den Berg, and M. Christensen. 2013. Relationship between meat toughness and properties of connective tissue from cows and young bulls heat treated at low temperatures for prolonged times. Meat Sci. 93:787–795. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.12.001
Dominguez-Hernandez, E., A. Salaseviciene, and P. Ertbjerg. 2018. Low-temperature long-time cooking of meat: Eating quality and underlying mechanisms. Meat Sci. 143:104–113. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.04.032
Felderhoff, C., C. Lyford, J. Malaga, R. Polkinghorne, C. Brooks, A. Garmyn, and M. Miller. 2020. Beef quality preferences: Factors driving consumer satisfaction. Foods. 9:289. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9030289
Food Safety and Inspection Service (FSIS). 2021. FSIS Cooking guideline for meat and poultry products (Revised Appendix A). https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2021-12/Appendix-A.pdf (Accessed June 5, 2023)https://www.fsis.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media_file/2021-12/Appendix-A.pdf
Gámbaro, A., L. A. Panizzolo, N. Hodos, G. da Rosa, S. Barrios, G. Garmendia, C. Gago, and J. Martínez-Monzó. 2023. Influence of temperature and time in sous-vide cooking on physicochemical and sensory parameters of beef shank cuts. International Journal of Gastronomy and Food Science 32:100701. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijgfs.2023.100701
García-Segovia, P., A. Andrés-Bello, and J. Martínez-Monzó. 2007. Effect of cooking method on mechanical properties, color and structure of beef muscle (M. pectoralis). J. Food Eng. 80:813–821. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jfoodeng.2006.07.010
Haghighi, H., A. M. Belmonte, F. Masino, G. Minelli, D. P. Lo Fiego, and A. Pulvirenti. 2021. Effect of time and temperature on physicochemical and microbiological properties of sous vide chicken breast fillets. Applied Sciences 11:3189. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/app11073189
Hunt, M. C., O. Sørheim, and E. Slinde. 1999. Color and heat denaturation of myoglobin forms in ground beef. J. Food Sci. 64:847–851. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2621.1999.tb15925.x
Ismail, I., Y.-H. Hwang, A. Bakhsh, S.-J. Lee, E.-Y. Lee, C.-J. Kim, and S.-T. Joo. 2022. Control of sous-vide physicochemical, sensory, and microbial properties through the manipulation of cooking temperatures and times. Meat Sci. 188:108787. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2022.108787
Ismail, I., Y.-H. Hwang, and S.-T. Joo. 2019. Interventions of two-stage thermal sous-vide cooking on the toughness of beef semitendinosus. Meat Sci. 157:107882. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.107882
James, B. J., and S. W. Yang. 2012. Effect of cooking method on the toughness of bovine m. semitendinosus. Int. J. Food Eng. 8. doi: https://doi.org/10.1515/1556-3758.2762
Karki, R., P. Bremer, P. Silcock, and I. Oey. 2022. Effect of sous vide processing on quality parameters of beef short ribs and optimisation of sous vide time and temperature using third-order multiple regression. Food Bioprocess Tech. 15:1629–1646. doi: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11947-022-02849-6
King, N. J., and R. Whyte. 2006. Does it look cooked? A review of factors that influence cooked meat color. J. Food Sci. 71:R31–R40. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1750-3841.2006.00029.x
Kondjoyan, A., S. Oillic, S. Portanguen, and J.-B. Gros. 2013. Combined heat transfer and kinetic models to predict cooking loss during heat treatment of beef meat. Meat Sci. 95:336–344. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2013.04.061
Lenth, R. V. 2020. emmeans: Estimated marginal means, aka least-squares means. R package version 1.5.3. https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeanshttps://CRAN.R-project.org/package=emmeans
Lepetit, J., A. Grajales, and R. Favier. 2000. Modelling the effect of sarcomere length on collagen thermal shortening in cooked meat: Consequence on meat toughness. Meat Sci. 54:239–250. c
Lyford, C. P., J. M. Thompson, R. Polkinghorne, M. F. Miller, T. Nishimura, K. Neath, P. Allen, and E. J. Belasco. 2010. Is willingness to pay (WTP) for beef quality grades affected by consumer demographics and meat consumption preferences? Australasian Agribusiness Review 18:1–17.
Maughan, C., R. Tansawat, D. Cornforth, R. Ward, and S. Martini. 2012. Development of a beef flavor lexicon and its application to compare the flavor profile and consumer acceptance of rib steaks from grass- or grain-fed cattle. Meat Sci. 90:116–121. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2011.06.006
Miller, M. F., M. A. Carr, C. B. Ramsey, K. L. Crockett, and L. C. Hoover. 2001. Consumer thresholds for establishing the value of beef tenderness. J. Anim. Sci. 79:3062–3068. doi: https://doi.org/10.2527/2001.79123062x
Miller, R. 2020. Drivers of consumer liking for beef, pork, and lamb: A review. Foods. 9:428. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/foods9040428
Miller, R. K., A. R. Cabral, C. R. Kerth, and D. R. Warner. 2019. Predicting beef flavor differing in lipid heat denaturation and Maillard reaction products. Beef Research. https://www.beefresearch.org/resources/product-quality/project-summaries/2016-2020/predicting-beef-flavor https://www.beefresearch.org/resources/product-quality/project-summaries/2016-2020/predicting-beef-flavor
Miller, R. K., C. A. Pena, J. F. Legako, D. R. Woerner, C. Brooks, B. Schilling, M. N. Nair, T. Cramer, P. Smith, K. R. Wall, and C. R. Kerth. 2022. 2018 National Beef Flavor Audit: Consumer and descriptive sensory attributes. Meat Muscle Biol. 6. doi: https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb.13017
Mortensen, L. M., M. B. Frøst, L. H. Skibsted, and J. Risbo. 2012. Effect of time and temperature on sensory properties in low-temperature long-time sous-vide cooking of beef. Journal of Culinary Science & Technology. 10:75–90. doi: https://doi.org/10.1080/15428052.2012.651024
Nair, M. N., A. C. V. C. S. Canto, G. Rentfrow, and S. P. Suman. 2019. Muscle-specific effect of aging on beef tenderness. LWT. 100:250–252. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2018.10.038
Naqvi, Z. B., M. A. Campbell, S. Latif, P. C. Thomson, D. M. McGill, R. D. Warner, and M. A. Friend. 2021a. Improving tenderness and quality of M. biceps femoris from older cows through concentrate feeding, zingibain protease and sous vide cooking. Meat Sci. 180:108563. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2021.108563
Naqvi, Z. B., P. C. Thomson, M. A. Campbell, S. Latif, J. F. Legako, D. M. McGill, P. C. Wynn, M. A. Friend, and R. D. Warner. 2021b. Sensory and physical characteristics of M. biceps femoris from older cows using ginger powder (zingibain) and sous vide cooking. Foods. 10:1936. doi: https://doi.org/10.3390/foods10081936
Naqvi, Z. B., P. C. Thomson, M. Ha, M. A. Campbell, D. M. McGill, M. A. Friend, and R. D. Warner. 2021c. Effect of sous vide cooking and ageing on tenderness and water-holding capacity of low-value beef muscles from young and older animals. Meat Sci. 175:108435. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2021.108435
O’Quinn, T. G., J. F. Legako, J. C. Brooks, and M. F. Miller. 2018. Evaluation of the contribution of tenderness, juiciness, and flavor to the overall consumer beef eating experience. Translational Animal Science 2:26–36. doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txx008
Polkinghorne, R. J., and J. M. Thompson. 2010. Meat standards and grading: A world view. Meat Sci. 86:227–235. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.05.010
Purslow, P. P. 2018. Contribution of collagen and connective tissue to cooked meat toughness; some paradigms reviewed. Meat Sci. 144:127–134. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2018.03.026
Purslow, P. P., S. Oiseth, J. Hughes, and R. D. Warner. 2016. The structural basis of cooking loss in beef: Variations with temperature and ageing. Food Res. Int. 89:739–748. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodres.2016.09.010
R Core Team. 2020. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria. http://www.R-project.org/http://www.R-project.org/
Roldán, M., T. Antequera, A. Martín, A. I. Mayoral, and J. Ruiz. 2013. Effect of different temperature–time combinations on physicochemical, microbiological, textural and structural features of sous-vide cooked lamb loins. Meat Sci. 93:572–578. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2012.11.014
Roldán, M., T. Antequera, T. Pérez-Palacios, and J. Ruiz. 2014. Effect of added phosphate and type of cooking method on physico-chemical and sensory features of cooked lamb loins. Meat Sci. 97:69–75. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2014.01.012
Rowe, C., and C. R. Kerth. 2013. Meat cookery. In: The science of meat quality. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., Hoboken, NJ. p. 199–205. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118530726.ch10. Accessed on June 5, 2023.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781118530726.ch10
Schellekens, M. 1996. New research issues in sous-vide cooking. Trends Food Sci. Tech. 7:256–262. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/0924-2244(96)10027-3
Smith, G. C., and Z. L. Carpenter. 1974. Eating quality of animal products and their fat content. In: Fat content and composition of animal products: Proc. of a symposium, Washington, DC 12-13, 1974. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C. 147–182.
Stolowski, G. D., B. E. Baird, R. K. Miller, J. W. Savell, A. R. Sams, J. F. Taylor, J. O. Sanders, and S. B. Smith. 2006. Factors influencing the variation in tenderness of seven major beef muscles from three Angus and Brahman breed crosses. Meat Sci. 73:475–483. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2006.01.006
Suman, S. P., M. N. Nair, P. Joseph, and M. C. Hunt. 2016. Factors influencing internal color of cooked meats. Meat Sci. 120:133–144. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2016.04.006
Sun, S., F. D. Rasmussen, G. A. Cavender, and G. A. Sullivan. 2019. Texture, color and sensory evaluation of sous-vide cooked beef steaks processed using high pressure processing as method of microbial control. LWT. 103:169–177. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lwt.2018.12.072
Thathsarani, A. P. K., A. U. Alahakoon, and R. Liyanage. 2022. Current status and future trends of sous vide processing in meat industry; A review. Trends Food Sci. Tech. 129:353–363. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tifs.2022.10.009
Vaudagna, S. R., G. Sánchez, M. S. Neira, E. M. Insani, A. B. Picallo, M. M. Gallinger, and J. A. Lasta. 2002. Sous vide cooked beef muscles: effects of low temperature–long time (LT–LT) treatments on their quality characteristics and storage stability. Int. J. Food Sci. Tech. 37:425–441. doi: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2621.2002.00581.x
Vierck, K. R., J. F. Legako, and J. Brooks. 2021. Effects of dry-heat cookery method on beef strip loin steaks of two quality grades following sous vide preparation. Meat Muscle Biol. 5: 39, 1–13. doi: https://doi.org/10.22175/mmb.11700
Yang, X., H. Wang, M. Badoni, S. Zawadski, B. McLeod, D. Holman, and B. Uttaro. 2020. Effects of a novel three-step sous-vide cooking and subsequent chilled storage on the microbiota of beef steaks. Meat Sci. 159:107938. doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.meatsci.2019.107938