Tenderness Proves Tough Nut
For Beef Industry To Crack

By David Bowser

FORT WORTH — A lack of tenderness is a tough problem for the beef industry, says one Texas A&M researcher.

In the 1991 National Beef Quality Audit, consumers rated palatability problems sixth and toughness seventh. In 1995, tenderness problems ranked second and palatability third.

"We had more problems listed in 1991," explains Dr. Jeff Savell, head of Meat Science at Texas A&M University, "and we did a better job in taking those off, such as excessive fat. Now, because of work being done in the packing industry with trimmed cuts, that doesn't seem to be as big an issue."

Consequently, other problems listed by consumers moved up the chart.

In addition to the National Beef Quality Audit, Savell says there was also a National Beef Tenderness Survey conducted in 1991. Another one is being conducted now. The study will focus not only on meat out of the supermarket case, but from food service establishments as well.

"In 1991, we had 41.63 percent of chuck and round cuts displaying tough shear force values," Savell says. "These are the cuts that still give us problems."

It's easy to deal with ribeyes, strips and T-bones. Those cuts are more inherently tender. Of the middle meats, the top sirloin cut still presents a problem.

"We had more challenges facing that cut compared to the other ones," the meat scientist says.

The top sirloin has eroded in price over the years, Savell notes. In 1973, during the Nixon administration's beef price freeze, it was $1.89 a pound. In 1998, 25 years later, it's even less.

"That's because it's been inconsistent," Savell says. "A lot of restaurants have taken it off the menu because it can't do what it needs to. If we cook it medium rare or less, it eats well. If we cook it more, it eats like a round steak."

In 1997, a study addressed whether or not cuts could be sorted into different tenderness classifications, and what consumers would be willing to pay for them.

"When we did that project, we were very surprised that consumers were willing to pay more for more tender beef," Savell says. "This is something that we think is good news when we try to create more demand for the product, as we look at different sorting technologies that might be available and a chance to be able to position meat better compared to some our competitors."

In the 1991 and 1995 National Beef Audits, economists tried to calculate the cost to the industry as compared to the loss of value when beef was tough.

"In 1991 we estimated that was about $2.84 per head, or about $75 million for the industry," Savell says. "In 1995, we found it was $3.23 per head, or $91 million for the industry."

It's difficult to calculate loss of value to toughness, because survey respondents cannot reliably say what they are not going to pay for something, or what the result of having a tough eating experience would be. But the potential for a bad eating experience because of toughness is great.

"If you had one tough carcass, and took all the retail cuts from this carcass, it would reach 542 consumers," Savell says.

Savell claims that one restaurateur told him that one consumer with a bad eating experience will tell 12 people, each of them will tell eight people, each of those will tell five, and each of them will tell two.

"When you multiply that out, that's 960 people," Savell says.

Another restaurateur claims that when he goes into his restaurant on Saturday night and there's an empty table, it's not because of what happened Saturday. It's because of what happened four months earlier, when those customers came into his restaurant, had a poor eating experience and failed to return.

"You hear about all kinds of things we can do to make beef more tender, what we can do to make it better. There are really three factors that effect beef: actomyosin, background and nutrition.

The actomyosin effect refers to the muscle fiber, specifically how much contraction has occurred in slaughter. There is contraction in cold shortening, and the muscle will actually shorten and become tough.

Muscle fiber length makes a big difference.

"All you have to do is look at the muscle fiber or texture of a filet mignon versus an eye of round," Savell says. "You think both cuts are similar until you look at the muscling and see a more coarse texture in the eye of round steak and a very fine texture in the filet mignon."

Chemicals in those muscle fibers can be important to tenderness.

"If we can pick cattle that have low calpastatin levels, it makes a difference," Savell says. "The calpain to calpastatin ratio is an important thing to look for in cattle. As meat goes through the aging process, it starts breaking apart, and that helps the meat be more tender."

Calpains are endogenous enzymes that break down the muscle. Calpastatin prevents the calpains from doing their work.

"What we find is in different species, chicken, pork, lamb and beef, calpains really don't change very much," Savell says. "What does change is the amount of calpastatin. Pork has real low calpastatin. Chicken has extremely low calpastatin. Beef has moderate levels of calpastatin."

Among different breeds of cattle, some breeds have more calpastatin and some individual cattle have more calpastatin, he says.

"The more calpastatin you have," Savell says, "the less opportunity you have for these calpains to break the muscle down during aging and the more opportunity we have for some tough meat."

The background effects deal with connective tissues.

"That's the gristle you find in meat," Savell says. "The tenderloin doesn't have to do very much work, so it doesn't have very much connective tissue. The round steak has to work. It propels the animal around, so it has more connective tissue."

Physiological maturity makes a difference, too, Savell says.

"In older cattle, the collagen changes, just like the collagen of our skin changes as we go through the aging process," Savell says. "We get wrinkles in our skin. It's the same phenomenon that's occurring in the muscle."

Savell says nutrition is also important.

"If you've got cattle that are coming off feed and are gaining really well right before they go to slaughter," he says, "they tend to have a very high solubility. If they're struggling and kind of going downhill, we're not getting the protein turnover, and we'll have some problems."

There's a lot of talk today about fat in beef or the lack thereof. But fatness within the muscle is primarily related to quality grade, typically marbling.

It impacts the degree of doneness whenever the product is cooked.

"If we have Select meat, it tends to have less marbling," he says. "If it's cooked medium rare or less, it tends to work out most of the time. However, if it's cooked medium well or well done, it tends to start failing more because there's not as much marbling there to help us out."

If the product can be fitted to the way consumers cook it, it has a better chance of meeting customer expectations, but cooking methods remain one of the most difficult issues with which to work.

In the 1995 Beef Customer Satisfaction Project, researchers went to such cities as Houston, San Francisco, Philadelphia and Chicago and put beef into the home.

"For the most part, the beef was very well accepted by the consumers," he says. "There are places where you'll find differences in how it is used in the home, the kind of cooking methods that are employed."

Chucks and rounds should be steam-cooked, Savell says. Dry cooking is for cuts that come from ribs and loins.

"It's amazing how many people will take a round steak today, and put it on the grill," Savell says. "The grill is the number one method of cooking that we find for all these cuts, and we wonder why we don't like it, why it's tough."

A study in Philadelphia in the 1980s showed that's the way they cooked it. The study was repeated in the 1990s.

"That's the way they cooked it," Savell says. "We can go back to Philadelphia in 2008, they'll still be cooking that way. It's hard to change what people do, because what they do is inherent to them for as long as they've been doing these things."

Steaks are best when they're cooked to medium rare.

"That's when we get the highest rating from consumers," Savell says. "Fifty-eight percent of people cook medium well or more."

Meat tends to be cooked more thoroughly than it should be, he says, and people are not going to change.

"We've got to make sure we've got quality they will enjoy whenever they eat it, regardless of how they cook that meat," Savell says.

He goes on to say he thinks there are roles for each link in the production chain, from seedstock producer to retailer, in improving tenderness.

The right genetics have to be determined. There has to be good management throughout the process. The packer has to be able to convert the carcass efficiently. It has to be aged, and consumer education cannot be ignored.

"We've got to continue to discuss this as we go," Savell says. "If we increase customer satisfaction, we have a great opportunity to increase the demand for beef."