27 Quality Variation in Beef Chuck Eye Rolls Sourced from a Commercial Processor

Abstract

Abstract The objective of this study was to evaluate quality variation in beef Chuck Eye rolls (IMPS 116D). Beef Chuck Rolls (IMPS 116A) were purchased from a commercial meat packer and fabricated to obtain beef Chuck Eye Rolls (IMPS 116D). Cases were transported to the Illinois State University Meat Lab and hand-sliced into 2.54 cm boneless beef Chuck Eye steaks (IMPS 1116D) (n = 161). Each roll contained between 7 to 10 steaks for use in further meat quality analyses in accordance with in-plant procedures. Upon slicing, steaks were allowed to bloom for 15 minutes and then used in subsequent quality analysis including color, cook loss, and tenderness evaluation. Instrumental color measurements [L* (lightness), a* (redness), b* (yellowness)] were taken for each steak in duplicate with a HunterLab Miniscan XE Plus Spectrophotometer using a D65 illuminant, 100 observer, and 35-mm aperture. All steaks were cooked to a final internal temperature of 71° C. Steaks then underwent cook loss evaluation as well as tenderness analysis via Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF). Statistical analysis was performed using the Proc MIXED procedure of SAS to estimate variance components of steak quality in a nested design (steak within roll within case). For all response variables, the standard error was large for the case term. Ranges of observed response values were: L* 28.03-52.15, a* 14.55-27.82, b* 12.78-25.32, cook loss 17.58-61.11, shearforce 2.10-5.86. Variance components in L* and a* values followed similar patterns in which the greatest amount of variance was contributed by steak, followed by case, followed by roll (L* 13.541 (P < 0.001) vs. 9.035 (P = 0.1790) vs. 1.958 (P = 0.1839) and a* 4.055 (P < 0.0001) vs. 1.605 ( P= 0.2124) vs. 0.632 (P = 0.1746). Case, roll, and steak contributed variance almost equally for b* though two variance components were statistically different from zero σ2case =2.133 (P = 0.2344) σ2roll = 1.627 (P = 0.0335) σ2steak = 2.37 (P < 0.0001). Case contributed approximately 1.5 times the variance in cook loss when compared with steak (σ2case = 43.687 (P = 0.1387) vs. σ2steak=29.471 (P < 0.0001)) and approximately 3.5 times more than roll ( σ2case = 43.687 vs. σ2roll = 12.077 (P = 0.0565)). The largest impact on variance in shearforce values came from steak whereas case and roll contributed almost equally (shearforce σ2case = 0.0256 (P = 0.3894)σ2roll = 0.0333 (P = 0.2040) σ2steak = 0.2454 (P < 0.0001)). Some correlations were observed: L*:a* (-0.46, P < 0.0001), L*:b* (-0.07, P = 0.3979), L*:cookloss (0.166, P = 0.0422), and cookloss:shearforce (0.274, P = 0.0007). As lower-cost alternatives to traditional center of the plate cuts continue to grow in popularity among large volume purchasers, it is important to evaluate potential differences in quality attributes. Further evaluation of the impact of case as well as steak within Chuck Eye roll on individual steak quality is warranted.