The Effects of Thawing Method on Consumer Palatability Ratings of Beef Strip Loin Steaks
Kansas State University Extension
The objective of this study was to determine palatability differences in beef strip loin steaks among various US Department of Agriculture-approved thawing methods, and those commonly utilized by consumers.
Paired Low Choice beef strip loins (n=15) were collected and fabricated into six sections. Each section was fabricated into oneinch steaks, and assigned one of six thawing methods, including: countertop, cook from frozen, cold water, hot water, microwave, and refrigerator. Steaks were cooked to an internal peak temperature of 160°F and consumers were given samples which they evaluated for juiciness, tenderness, flavor liking, overall liking, attribute acceptability, and perceived level of quality. Samples were rated on a 100-point scale with 0 indicating dry, tough, or dislike extremely, and 100 indicating extremely juicy, extremely tender, or like extremely.
For beef demographic data, consumers reported that the most important beef palatability trait was flavor with 56.7% of consumers indicating it as the most important. Tenderness was rated as the most important by 33.3% of consumers. Additionally, consumers reported the trait they experienced the most variability with was tenderness. Results of consumer sensory evaluation indicated that there were no differences (P>0.05) among the six thaw methods for juiciness, tenderness, flavor, and overall liking. However, all treatments had an average rating of at least 57 for overall liking, indicating a high level of eating satisfaction. For all thaw methods, at least 82% of steaks were rated as overall acceptable. Additionally, for all thaw methods, consumers rated at least 79.1% of steaks acceptable for juiciness, tenderness, and flavor liking. Furthermore, the thaw method did not have an impact (P>0.05) on the perceived level of quality of samples.
In conclusion, beef strip loin steak palatability was not impacted by thawing method, and therefore consumers should use whichever thawing method is most convenient, or best suits their needs.
Truck Driver Stops Meat Heist
In late November, a Tyson Foods truck driver chased off around ten masked men who were stealing meat from the back of his truck while he slept. The burglary took place in Northeast Philadelphia in the early hours of the morning. The driver reported four separate vehicles being involved in the incident. The driver was sleeping, and reported waking up to noise. Once he felt the trailer behind his truck moving, he knew something was happening and got out to investigate. Once he walked to the back of his truck, the thieves started running away, dropping meat and boxes across the parking lot. In total, they made off with four pallets. Cargo theft, and stealing meat products, has been on the rise across the country. In December, a man in Central Texas stole almost $2,000 worth of briskets from several grocery stores.
House Passage of NEPA Modernization Provides Regulatory Relief to Ranchers
In December, the Standardizing Permitting and Expediting Economic Development (SPEED) Act, modernizing the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), passed the House. House Natural Resources Committee Chairman Bruce Westerman (R-AR) and Rep. Jared Golden (D-ME) originally sponsored this bill to speed up NEPA permitting processes. The National Cattlemen’s Beef Association (NCBA) and Public Lands Council (PLC) have consistently pushed to modernize NEPA to allow livestock producers to be able to quickly carry out critical conservation work.
“Many livestock producers rely on federal permitting under NEPA to make range improvements and carry out other voluntary conservation work to maintain working lands and prevent degradation. Unfortunately, outdated NEPA processes have made permitting for livestock grazing much more difficult and costly, which limits the amount of conservation work that can be done and leaves working lands in much worse condition,” said NCBA Executive Director of Natural Resources and PLC Executive Director Kaitlynn Glover. “This legislation speeds up federal permitting by reducing bureaucratic red tape and not letting NEPA be weaponized by frivolous litigation. NCBA and PLC thank Chairman Westerman and Rep. Golden for their work on this important legislation.”
Grazing Crop Residues with Excess Downed Grain
by Sandy Johnson and Jason Warner, Kansas State University Extension
Each year, utilization of corn or grain sorghum residues following harvest by beef cattle represents an excellent opportunity to extend the grazing season into the winter, thereby reducing the need to feed harvested forages. This year, for various reasons, there have been reports across the state of downed grain in residue fields at levels greater than typically seen. While it does require us to change our management approach, residue fields with high levels of grain on the surface of the field can still be grazed safely and economically. The degree to which grain in the field poses a risk is dependent on many factors, but if you are faced with determining how to best use a field that has downed grain, keep the following things in mind.
The grain sorghum or milo kernel has a very hard outer coating, and it also has a slower rate and lower extent of digestion than corn. Thus, the relative level of risk of acidosis or founder is lower for grain sorghum compared to corn. In order for the starch in either grain to be fully available to the microbes in the rumen, the kernels must be cracked or processed. While the rumination, or “cud chewing,” activity allows this to happen, the process of starch digestion is generally slower when the animal masticates the grain to break the kernel and is also consuming some forage from the plant at the same time. So, situations in which there are piles of loose grain on the field surface if the truck was overfilled or when cows unintendedly have access to grain that flows out of a silo bag at the edge of the field pose a much greater risk of animal losses than corn grain still in the ear or milo still attached to the head.
How Much Is a Lot?
A sound estimate of the amount of grain down on the field surface can be challenging to assess, but it is very important. A field with 10 bushels per acre down is a much different situation than one with 75 bushels per acre on the field. In general, levels greater than 10 to 15 bushels per acre require additional caution and management. Estimates from yield maps in the combine can be helpful to identify areas in the field of concern. A simple method from colleagues at the University of Nebraska for determining the amount of downed corn is to measure out three different 100’-long strips in the field, add up the number of eightinch ear equivalents and divide the number of ears by two to get approximate bushels per acre. For example, if strip one contained four 8” ear equivalents, strip two contained two and a half 8” ear equivalents, and strip three contained one and a half 8” ear equivalents, then it would equate to four bushels per acre (4 + 2.5 + 1.5 ÷ 2).
Cattle Experience Matters
There are research data that suggests grazing is a learned behavior. Beef cows that have previously grazed crop residues will seek out and consume any grain present first before the husk, leaf, and stalk material. Heavily grazing (i.e., flash or mop grazing) fields with high amounts of downed grain with naive animals such as weaned calves first before turning in more experienced cows can be a method to lessen the risk to those animals. Likewise, consider grazing cull cows or bulls ahead of pregnant cows and heifers.
Animal and Field Management
Consider strip-grazing fields with more than 10 to 15 bushels per acre rather than allowing access to the entire field. While this does increase the need for fence material and labor to move the fence, it does reduce the risk of acidosis/founder because the increased stocking density reduces grazing selectivity. Fill animals up with hay prior to turning them into the field to avoid them being hungry and grazing aggressively upon turnout. Consider supplementing grain, starting at 0.25% and gradually increasing up to 0.5% of body weight, for at least 10–14 days prior to grazing high-risk fields to help animals adapt to grain they will encounter during grazing. Supplementing a palatable source of hay to cattle while grazing high risk fields can help offset risk by substituting grain intake. Protein supplementation, particularly with a source of non-protein nitrogen such as urea or biuret, as well as providing an ionophore are both sound management strategies to improve cattle utilization of crop residue fields with excess downed grain.
