Tenderness Study Indicates
Beef Has Made Improvements

CHARLOTTE, N.C. — There is good news on the beef tenderness front.

That was one of the messages delivered to those attending the product marketing session of the Cattlemen's College, held in conjunction with the recent annual meeting of the National Cattlemen's Beef Association here.

The tenderness issue has been a thorn in the beef industry's side for some time, but a group of research scientists told listeners that the industry has made significant progress in the last six to seven years. Their comments were based on data from two recent studies funded through the Cattlemen’s Beef Board.

The industry conducted the first national beef tenderness survey in 1990-91. The survey was conducted again in 1998. Dr. Jeff Savell, Texas A&M University, was one of the research cooperators involved in both studies.

Tenderness of beef at retail and food service levels was tested using Warner-Bratzer shear force measurements as well as consumer sensory panels. Product from the meat case was tested in two to three retail chains per city and four stores per chain in each city. Researchers also looked at one or two food service establishments per city. The cities in both studies were Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Denver, Houston, Atlanta, New York, and Philadelphia.

In the 1990 study, investigators tested tenderness on steaks and roasts. In the 1998 study, however, steaks were the only product tested.

The 1990 survey indicated definite tenderness problems with particular cuts like the top sirloin, the round and the chuck, Savell told listeners. The middle meats performed fairly well, however.

In 1990, Savell said, the average age of the retail product was 17 days, but it ranged from three to 90 days of age. Most middle meats, he pointed out, need a minimum of 14 days of aging.

Preliminary results from the 1998 survey indicated average age of the retail product is approximately 21 days. Savell said aging problems continue to arise when retailers feature a particular cut.

Overall, Savell reported that all cuts except the bottom round were more tender in 1998 than they were in 1990.

"There's no question that we've seen vast improvement in tenderness since 1990. We've seen across the board a reduction in shear force values."

Savell attributes the improvement to a couple of key factors. First, he said, he believes retail beef is being handled more like foodservice beef.

"In the decade of the 1990s we've seen more retailers take more interest in the product they’re selling. They are thinking more like a food service establishment, thinking more about aging and being more disciplined about aging," he explained.

Savell said that in 1990, Los Angeles had more of a tenderness problem than other cities studied. Immediately after the survey was conducted, one of the stores was so taken with the information they found out in the study that they changed the way they did business.

"We were pleased with the quality of the cuts that came into the (more recent) study," Savell said. "The color was good, they were cut good, they had good thickness, etc."

Another notable improvement was the availability of more top Choice products at retail.

"In 1990 it was difficult to find very many stores with top Choice. A few stores had some CAB (Certified Angus Beef), but we couldn’t get enough to analyze it in 1990. This time we found a lot of top Choice."

Also in 1990 there was a considerable amount of no-roll beef, but little was found in the retail case in the 1998 survey.

Researchers also noted a strong comeback with top sirloin steak.

"I think it's more tender, in part because we’ve cleaned up the problem with injection site blemishes. In 1990, one out of six top sirloins had injection site blemishes," Savell said.

"We still have some cuts that need some attention, like the bottom round and eye of round. We're making progress. Don't quit," he encouraged producers. "There's still more work to be done."

Researchers also discussed the "guaranteed tender" project. The objective of this project was to assess the value to the consumer of being able to buy a guaranteed tender steak, merchandised as "Tender Select." Researchers opted to go with a Select product rather than choice because research indicated consumers wanted both tender and lean beef.

Approximately 1000 consumers were screened over the phone. The study parameters required that they be between 21 and 75 years of age and a primary or joint responsibility shopper for their household.

The consumers were asked a series of questions, including whether they eat beef at least once in an average two-week period, and where they had eaten their last 10 beef meals (on average, seven were eaten in the home and three in restaurants). They were also asked if their beef consumption had remained the same in the last 12 months, to which 66 percent responded that it had stayed the same, 20 percent that it had increased and 14 percent that it had decreased. They were also asked if they were budget shoppers or driven by nutrition. Their spouses were asked the same questions.

From those questions, three sub-segments were formed: heavy, medium and light beef users. Light users ate beef one to four times in two weeks, moderate users 5-7 times, and heavy users eight or more times.

Of the 1000 consumers surveyed, 759 were asked to come into one of the King Sooper grocery stores, where they were told to shop the case. When they finished, researchers looked to see what they had in their baskets. Fifty percent was beef and 50 percent was other protein.

To test whether they were high-volume steak buyers, consumers were asked what kind of beef cuts they normally buy. They were also asked to compare chicken, pork and beef in juiciness and tenderness. In three attributes, beef outperformed chicken: in flavor, juiciness and overall satisfaction. Chicken outscored beef on nutrition and versatility. In two categories, tenderness and consistency, beef and chicken tied.

Tender Select beef was placed in the retail case and priced at a 50 cent premium. Consumers completed a "concept test," considered an excellent means for measuring new product appeal. They were asked if they were willing to pay more for a guaranteed tender steak and if they would buy beef more frequently if this type of product were in the case more often. They were also asked how they evaluated other proteins and whether a tender product would make beef more competitive with other proteins.

They then received two unidentified steaks, strip loins that were Select and YG 3 or better, to try at home. One was a "control" steak, with a slice shear value exceeding 50 pounds, an indicator that the steak would be of average to marginal tenderness after 14 days of aging. The second, a tender steak, was tested for a slice shear value under 33 pounds.

Participants were allowed to prepare their steaks however they chose. The steaks were vacuum-sealed, so participants were given thawing instructions and a doneness chart. They were required to fill out a diary as they ate their steaks.

Not only did they rank tenderness higher, but they also ranked overall satisfaction higher when they ate the tender steak.

Researchers found a three to one preference for the tender steak. Sixty-one percent strongly agreed that eating the tender Select steak was a pleasurable experience. Another 31 percent "somewhat agreed" with that statement. In addition, 66 percent of those participating in the survey said they would probably buy the product. Twenty-three percent said they would definitely buy that type product if it were in the case.

Finally, significantly more consumers were willing to pay more for Tender Select, researchers said, up to about a 50 cent per pound premium. After that, the percentage of willingness to buy went down.

There was no advertising prior to the Tender Select product being placed in the retail case, but researchers said the product sold well enough that King Soopers is interested in continuing to test it.