Meat Science 90 (2012) 116–121

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Meat Science
j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w. e l s ev i e r. c o m / l o c a t e / m e a t s c i

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
Curtis Maughan, Rossarin Tansawat, Daren Cornforth, Robert Ward, Silvana Martini ⁎
Department of Nutrition, Dietetics, and Food Sciences, Utah State University, 8700 Old Main Hill, 750 North 1200 East, Logan, 84322-8700, UT, United States

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: Ten panelists were selected from the local community to develop a meat lexicon composed of 18 terms that
Received 23 November 2010 describe flavor attributes found in red meats. This flavor lexicon was used to compare the flavor profile of
Received in revised form 7 February 2011 meat from beef cattle finished on grass or grain. Steaks from grass-fed animals were significantly (P b 0.05)
Accepted 3 June 2011
higher in barny, bitter, gamey, and grassy flavor, and lower in juicy and umami notes. Gamey, barny, bitter and
grassy were some of the attributes inversely correlated to the degree of liking of the meat and therefore can be
Keywords:
Lexicon
classified as “negative” attributes. Brothy, umami, roast beef, juicy, browned, fatty and salty are some of the
Beef attributes positively correlated to the degree of liking of beef and therefore can be identified as attributes that
Grass-fed drive consumers’ acceptance. Steaks from grass-fed cattle were rated by consumers as slightly liked (6.08 on a
Grain-fed 9-point scale), while steaks from grain-fed animals were rated as moderately liked (7.05 on a 9-point scale).
Sensory evaluation © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
Descriptive analysis

1. Introduction showed that WOF from reheated samples were associated with an
increase of negative notes, such as cardboardy and oxidized, and a
Flavor is a combination of taste and aroma, and is one of the main decrease in positive notes, such as cooked beef lean and cooked beef fat.
factors that drive consumer acceptance of foods. Sensory evaluation is a Even though their research provided a lexicon for identifying and
powerful tool to evaluate the quality of a food product. In particular, quantifying WOF, it did not provide a tool to evaluate the sensory profile
sensory evaluation has been used during the last 20 years to identify of fresh cooked meats. Sensory evaluation techniques have also been
meat flavors, both desirable and undesirable (Allen, Cornforth, Whittier, used by Berry et al. (1980) to evaluate the flavor profile of loin steaks
Vasavada, & Nummer, 2007; James & Calkins, 2008; Wadhwani, Murdia, with different levels of maturity. These authors reported that beef from
& Cornforth, 2010). However, sensory studies usually differ in termi- E maturity had higher aroma and flavor amplitudes and a greater
nology, type of scale used, and type of panel (consumer vs. descriptive), predominance of “grassy” flavors. Stetzer, Cadwaller, Singh, McKeith,
and are usually focused on the negative attributes of beef. Variation and Brewer (2008) also reported the effect of enhancement and ageing
among sensory panel methods hampers meaningful comparisons on flavor and volatile compounds in beef. They reported that several
among studies. flavor-active compounds such as nonanal were increased by the
A standardized lexicon of terms applicable among sensory studies on enhancement and ageing of the beef, while pentanal, hexanal and
fresh meats is strongly needed. Flavor lexicons have been used for hexanoic acid were decreased by these treatments. There are myriad
decades in several high value products such as cheese, wine, whisky, studies using sensory evaluation to determine the flavor profile of the
coffee, and chocolate (Drake & Civille, 2003) where small changes in meat (Stelzleni & Johnson, 2008; Hamling, Jenschke, & Calkins, 2008;
specific attributes can tremendously affect the acceptance of the product James & Calkins, 2008; Stetzer, Cadwaller, et al., 2008; Sitz, Calkins, Feuz,
by the consumer. Johnson and Civille (1986) developed a flavor lexicon Umberger, & Eskridge, 2005; Stetzer, Tucker, McKeith, & Brewer, 2007;
for warmed-over flavors (WOF) in meats. Their lexicon included terms Stetzer, Tucker, McKeith, & Brewer, 2008; Rojas & Brewer, 2007);
such as: cooked beef lean, cooked beef fat, browned, serum/bloody, however, it is very difficult to compare results among these studies due
grainy/cowy, cardboardy, oxidized/rancid/painty, and fishy. They also to the lack of standardized terms. A standardized meat flavor lexicon
included sweet, salty, bitter and sour in their lexicon. Their research will have immediate application to identify the effects of diet (grass or
grain), maturity, and marbling on beef flavor profile. Other applications
will include the identification of processing procedures (ageing,
⁎ Corresponding author. Tel.: + 1 435 797 8136; fax: + 1 435 797 2379. marinating) to minimize off-flavors (sour, grassy, gamey) and maintain
E-mail addresses: [email protected] (C. Maughan), [email protected]
(R. Tansawat), [email protected] (D. Cornforth), [email protected]
desirable flavors (savory, umami, salty, brothy).
(R. Ward), [email protected] (S. Martini). The objectives of this research were: 1) to develop a standardized
URL: http://www.MartiniResearch.com (S. Martini). flavor lexicon for beef, 2) to use the new lexicon to identify and

0309-1740/$ – see front matter © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2011.06.006
 C. Maughan et al. / Meat Science 90 (2012) 116–121 117

quantify differences between the flavor profile of beef from cattle fed Table 2
different diets, and 3) to correlate these flavor differences with Taste concentrations used to achieve a specific taste intensity in aqueous phase during
panel training.
consumer acceptance. These objectives allow the identification of
flavor notes that drive consumer acceptance in red meats. Attribute Taste definition Treatment Levels Scale
(%) value

2. Materials and methods Bitter Taste elicited by caffeine Caffeine 0.05 2

0.08 5
0.15 10
2.1. Meat samples
Salty Taste elicited by salts Sodium chloride 0.20 2.5
0.35 5
Primal rib sections of three grass-fed steers were purchased from 0.50 8.5
James Ranch, CO; while rib sections of two grain-fed steers and one Sour Taste elicited by acids Citric acid 0.05 2
heifer were obtained from USU's Animal Science Farm. 0.08 5
0.15 10
The grain-fed animals were Black Angus bred, while the grass-fed
Sweet Taste elicited by sugar Sucrose 2 2
animals were Red Angus sired with a mix of Hereford and Angus 5 5
dams. The grass-fed animals were 24–27 months old and had a 10 10
hanging weight between 318 and 360 kg. Their diets were supple- Umami Taste elicited by monosodium Monosodium 0.7 5
glutamate glutamate 1.4 9
mented with alfalfa during the winter, and they were finished for
2.8 13
120 days exclusively on grass. The grain-fed animals were 19–
20 months old, had a finish diet of 120 days consisting of 60% corn
silage, 30% flaked barley, and 10% alfalfa, and were also 320–345 kg in
hanging weight. The left and right rib sections were used from each 2.3. Descriptive sensory evaluation
animal. The characteristics of the beef samples used in this study are
detailed in Table 1. The fat content of the samples was determined in A sensory descriptive panel (n = 10) was recruited and selected
uncooked rib steaks using the Soxhlet method using petroleum ether from the local community to develop a flavor lexicon for meats.
as the solvent (AOAC, 1990). Raw steak pH was measured on 10 g of Potential panelists were recruited using local newspapers and flyers
sample that were finely chopped, diluted to 100 ml in distilled water, in the community, and were screened for the panel based on their
allowed to equilibrate at room temperature for 30 min and then ability to differentiate between basic tastes in both identification and
filtered. Filtrate pH was measured, using a Fisher Accumet pH meter intensity rankings, according to established guidelines (American
model 610 A (Fisher Scientific Inc, Salt Lake City, UT), equipped with a Society for Testing and Materials, 1981). Panelists who passed basic
combination pH electrode calibrated immediately before use to pH 4.0 screening were recruited for the panel and monitored over time for
and 7.0. ability to identify and quantify meat attributes in order to be included
Primal ribs from each animal were vacuum packed after harvest, in the final evaluation. Panelists ranged in age from 18 to 60, with 7
shipped to the Department of Nutrition, Dietetics, and Food Sciences males and 3 females, though demographics are not expected to
at USU and immediately frozen at − 20 °C until use. The Longissimus influence the ratings in a trained descriptive panel. Panelists were
dorsi muscles for each animal were used for the sensory tests. trained for a minimum of 50 h on beef flavors using the 15-point
Spectrum intensity scale (Muñoz & Civille, 1998). A 15-point intensity
2.2. Sample preparation for sensory tests scale was used in the development of this standardized lexicon to
allow the use of this tool in different types of meats, from plain beef to
Frozen ribeye steaks were cut to a thickness of 2.54 cm and thawed more flavorful products such as jerky and salami. This scale is
for 24 h before cooking. The ribeye steaks were then trimmed to leave commonly used in the development of other flavor lexicons such as
only the Longissimus dorsi muscles for cooking, to avoid any variation cheese (Drake & Civille, 2003). Panelists were first trained on the
in flavors between muscle types. identification and rating of the five basic tastes: sweet, sour, bitter,
Samples were prepared following the guidelines from the salty and umami. Solutions of sucrose, citric acid, caffeine, sodium
American Meat Science Association (1995). Steaks were cooked on chloride, and monosodium glutamate were used, respectively. The
electric griddles at 163 °C until reaching an internal temperature of concentrations used to achieve specific taste intensity are included in
70 °C. Internal temperature was measured at the center of the steak Tables 2 and 3. After training with the five basic tastes, panelists were
using an AquaTuff 35200 digital thermometer (Atkins Technical Inc, introduced to different pieces of meat to develop the meat flavor
Gainesvile, FL USA) equipped with a fast-responding microneedle lexicon. Meat references were created to train the panelists in the
probe. The probe was inserted horizontally from the side along the identification and quantification of the flavor intensity of the terms
center line of the steaks during cooking. At least two readings were included in the flavor lexicon. These references were based on
taken per steak to verify that steaks had reached the target internal previous studies (Berry et al., 1980, Johnson & Civille, 1986; Stelzleni
temperature of 70 °C. They were then cut into 2.54 cm cubes and & Johnson, 2008; Stetzer, Cadwaller, et al., 2008), and supplemented
placed in covered aluminum dishes, and served to the panelists hot. with flavors identified by the panelists during the lexicon develop-
Panelists tasted the samples in random order with 3-digit blinding ment. Each reference was presented at different levels of intensity
codes under red colored lights to minimize bias. to standardize the use of the 15-point intensity scale. The lexicon

Table 1
Carcass characteristics of grain and grass-fed animals. HW: hanging weight; REA: rib eye area; BFT: back fat thickness; MS: Marbling score; MA: moderately abundant; M: moderate;
S: small; Sl: Slight.

Samples HW (kg) REA (cm2) BFT (mm) MS Quality grade pH Fat (%)

Grain #1 320 81.3 1.3 MA Prime (heifer) 5.13 ± 0.02 13.86 ± 1.99
Grain #2 330 80.6 0.5 M high Choice (steer) 5.15 ± 0.01 12.38 ± 1.45
Grain #3 345 87.7 1.3 S low Choice (steer) 5.06 ± 0.02 11.05 ± 1.40
Grass #1 318 80.0 0.3 Sl Select (steer) 5.28 ± 0.02 3.03 ± 0.20
Grass #2 330 78.7 0.8 Sl Select (steer) 5.27 ± 0.01 3.51 ± 0.40
Grass #3 360 85.8 0.5 Sl Select (steer) 5.27 ± 0.01 3.54 ± 0.23
118 C. Maughan et al. / Meat Science 90 (2012) 116–121

Table 3 whole. Additional focus was given in training sessions to those areas
Taste concentrations used to train descriptive panelists in the detection, identification where panelists showed they had difficulties in quantifying attributes.
and quantification of mixtures of the 5 basic tastes.
After the completion of training, meat samples from grain- and
Bitter Salty Sour Sweet Umami grass-fed animals were presented to the 10 panelists (eight males,
Sweet 2% sour 0.15% umami 0.2% 0 0 1.5 1 3.5 two females). The panel evaluated ribs from the three animals from
Sweet 5% sour 0.2% 0 0 4.5 3.5 0 each dietary treatment, for a total of six steak samples. Ribs were
Salty 0.35%, sour 0.2% 0 3 5.5 0 0 chosen randomly from the left or right side of the animals.
Sweet 2%, sour 0.2% 0 0 5 2 0
Meat was presented in 2.54 cm cubes with three-digit codes in a
Bitter 0.05%, salty 0.5% 2.5 3.5 0 0 0
Sweet 5%, salty 0.5%, bitter 0.15% 4 2 0 3 0 balanced and randomized design. Panelists tasted and evaluated each
Sweet 5% salty 0.5% 0 3 0 4 0 sample individually, using water and unsalted crackers to cleanse
Sweet 2%, sour 0.15%, umami 0.2% 0 0.5 3 1 2 their palettes between samples. After tasting all samples, panelists
waited for 15 min before tasting a replicate of the samples in a new
randomized order.
development consisted in first familiarizing the panelists with
different flavor attributes using the references available in the
literature. The number of descriptors selected to be used in the flavor 2.4. Consumer test
lexicon was determined by panel consensus. After the flavor lexicon
was developed, training in the intensity of these attributes was A consumer panel consisting of 120 panelists rated the grass and
performed using the references detailed in Table 4. In general, grain-fed beef steaks for liking on a typical 9-point hedonic scale. Each
references were prepared with lean or full fat ground beef, depending panelist was presented with two steaks, consisting of one grain-fed
on the sample, and spiked with a specific compound (or cooked in a and one grass-fed sample. The steaks were randomly selected from
particular manner) to develop the desired flavor (Table 4). For the one of the three animals from each diet treatment. For a constant
reference on the grassy attribute, grass-fed steak was purchased from treatment, each animal was presented 40 times. The steaks were
a local store. For gamey references meats from elk and deer were prepared in the same manner as for the descriptive panel. In brief,
provided by the Meat Laboratory at Utah State University. As training each steak was cooked on an electric griddle to an internal
progressed, panelists had more individual evaluations as well as temperature of 70 °C, cut into 2.54 cm cubes, and placed in covered
group discussions. Meat and reference samples were presented to aluminum dishes to keep the samples warm. The samples were
panelists in individual booths, and results were collected by computer presented in random order with three-digit blinding codes to
software. Red lighting and random presentation with 3-digit blinding minimize bias. Panelists were asked to rate their overall liking of
codes were used during training. Panelist performance was measured each sample on a 9-point hedonic scale (1 = dislike extremely,
throughout the study using graphical panelist evaluation software to 2 = dislike very much, 3 = dislike moderately, 4 = dislike slightly,
ensure consistency and reproducibility (Nofima & Denmark, 2008). 5 = neither like or dislike, 6 = like slightly, 7 = like moderately,
Panelists were considered to be trained on an attribute based on their 8 = like very much, 9 = like extremely), comment on each sample,
ability to evaluate identical samples the same over multiple and answer basic demographic questions such as gender, age, and
repetitions, as well as rate the samples similarly to the panel as a frequency of steak consumption.

Table 4
Flavor lexicon references used in the training of the meat descriptive panel. Basic tastes were also included in the lexicon and the references used are reported in Table 2.

Attribute Taste definition in beef Reference Scale value

Astringent Mouth-drying and harsh sensation Tannic acid 0.05% in water 7–8
Alum 0.1% in water 8–10
Barny Aromatics associated with feces 0.5 μg skatole/g of beef 5
1 μg skatole/g of beef 10
Bloody Taste associated with undercooked meat Steak cooked to 55 °C 10–12
Brothy Flavors and aromatics associated with boiled 5% of low-sodium beef broth in ground beef 7–9
meat or soup stock 10% of low-sodium beef broth in ground beef 9–11
20% of low-sodium beef broth in ground beef 12–14
Browned Flavors associated with meat that is cooked Steaks cooked to 71 °C, allowed to brown on Depending on "browness" of sample,
more and charred on the outside each side ranges from 7 to 12
Gamey Taste associated with wild game meat Wild game meat such as deer and elk Depends on animal
Grassy Aromatic found in grass-fed animals 1 drop hexanal in 300 g beef 4–6
1 drop hexanal in 100 g beef 7–8
3 drops hexanal in 100 g beef 15
Juicy Sensation caused by meats with higher levels Different types of steaks with varying levels Depends on sample
of juices of juice/toughness
Fatty Sensation caused by various levels of fat in 90% Lean ground beef 4–6
the beef 80% Lean ground beef 6–8
73% Lean ground beef 10–12
Livery Taste found in animal organs 40% cow liver in ground beef 6–8
75% cow liver in ground beef 10–12
100% liver 12–14
Metallic Taste associated with various metal flavors 0.36% Ferrous sulfate in ground beef 5–7
found in meat 0.50% Ferrous sulfate in 100 g ground beef 8–10
Oxidized/warmed over flavor Flavor of reheated meat Ground beef cooked then refrigerated for at least 6–10
24 h before reheating
Roast beef Flavor developed in beef after holding at Fresh ground beef 0
temperature for long periods of time Ground beef cooked, held in oven for 1 h Roast beef 1–3, browned 1–3
Ground beef cooked, held in oven for 2 h Roast beef 3–6, browned 3–6
 C. Maughan et al. / Meat Science 90 (2012) 116–121 119

2.5. Statistical analysis grass-fed cattle were analyzed using the descriptive panel. As described
Section 2.1, three animals from each treatment (diet) were used in the
Statistical Analysis Software (SAS) version 9.1 (SAS Institute, Inc., experimental design. Table 5 shows the panel average rating for each
Cary, NC) with the proc glm function was used for analysis of variance sample and each attribute. For each attribute, samples identified with
to identify statistically significant differences at the 95% confidence the same superscript letter are not significantly different (α = 0.05).
level. Comparison of the means was made based on p-values Higher intensity values were observed in the meats from grass-fed
(α = 0.05) using the least significant different adjustment to obtain animals for barny, bitter, gamey, and grassy and lower intensity values
differences of least means squares. Principle component analysis were observed for juicy and umami. It is interesting to note that
(PCA) using proc corr was used to analyze lexicon terms and their variability was also observed in some of the grass-fed attributes (data
relationship to the samples and consumer preferences. not shown) suggesting that animals also contribute to flavor variability.
Farmer and Patterson (1991) report that several disulphide compounds
3. Results and discussion are related to beef flavor. Some of these compounds include 2-methyl-3-
furanthiol and bis(2-methyl-3-furyl) disulphide. These compounds are
3.1. Meat characteristics usually products from the Maillard reaction between sulphur-contain-
ing amino acids and the reducing sugars in the meat. Allen, Vercelloti,
Table 1 shows the characteristics of the grass- and grain- fed meat. Dupuy, and Spanier (1988) have identified pentanal, 2,4-decadienal,
No differences were found in the hanging weight and in the rib eye hexanal, and 2,3-octanedione in meats, among other compounds.
area between the different types of meat. As expected, slight Stetzer, Cadwaller, et al. (2008) also identified hexanal, 3-hydroxy-2-
differences were found in pH values, with slightly higher values butanone, 1-octen-3-ol, butanoic acid, and nonanal in beef samples.
observed for the grass-fed meat. Similarly, differences were found in These authors show that the livery off-flavor in the meat is positively
fat content, back fat thickness, marbling scores and grade, with lower correlated with pentanal, hexanal, 3-hydroxy-2-butanone, and hex-
fat contents found for the grass-fed beef. These are expected anoic acid. While rancid off-flavor is correlated with pentanal and 2-
differences due to the feeding regime, and also to the different ages phenyl furan, it is not correlated with hexanal. Most of the research
of the animals used. Grass-fed animals usually gain weight more performed on grass-fed and grain-fed beef is based on the meat quality
slowly than feedlot cattle. Thus, grass-fed cattle require longer time and very little data reporting flavor differences in these types of meat is
than grain-fed cattle to reach the target harvest weight range. available (Melton, Amiri, Davis, & Backus, 1982). In fact, most of the
research is based on the improved nutritional quality of the grass-fed
3.2. Meat flavor lexicon development beef in terms of fatty acid profile and on the volatiles compounds
released from the meat. In general, beef obtained from grass-fed cattle
The descriptive panel was used to develop a standardized meat has a higher content of mono- and polyunsaturated fatty acids and
flavor lexicon. The lexicon consisted of 18 terms that describe flavor common volatile compounds include 1-penten-1-ol, 2-penten-1-ol
characteristics commonly found in meat. These terms are detailed in (Aurousseau et al., 2007a; Aurousseau et al., 2007b; Elmore, Mottram,
Table 4 and include: astringent, barny, bitter, bloody, brothy, browned, Enser, & Wood, 2006; Gatellier, Mercier, Juin, & Renerre, 2005;
gamey, grassy, juicy, fatty, livery, metallic, oxidized (warmed-over Ponnampalam, Mann, & Sinclair, 2006; Yang, Lanari, Brewster, &
flavor), roast beef, salty, sour, sweet, and umami. Table 4 also provides a Tume, 2002). The previous research discussed above suggests that the
definition of each term and the concentrations used to train the flavor profile of meats is strongly dependant on the volatile compounds
panelists on the quantification of these attributes. of the meat, which in turn might depend on the chemical characteristics
of the samples, such as fatty acid composition. A recent report from
3.3. Descriptive analysis of meat from grain- and grass-fed cattle Brewer (2006) describes the association of specific beef flavors with
volatile compounds. For example, the term “grassy” is associated with
After intensive training in the identification and quantification hexanal, while fatty is associated with nona-2(E)-enal and sweet with
of meat attributes included in the lexicon, meat samples from grain- and delta-nonalactone. We suggest that flavor differences reported in this
research are a consequence of differences in the chemical composition
of the meat such as fat content and fatty acid composition and that
Table 5 similar volatile compounds, as the ones described in previous research,
Flavor profile of beef obtained from grain and grass-fed cows. Ratings for each can be associated with these flavor differences. The identification and
treatment are expressed as the mean values ± standard deviations of the three animals
tested. Data was obtained by a 10-member descriptive panel using a 15-point category
quantification of these compounds exceed the scope of this research.
scale. Results from the descriptive panel suggest that the newly
developed flavor lexicon can be used to detect and quantify flavor
Attribute Grass Grain P value
differences in meat. In addition, results reported in this paper indicate
Astringent 1.69 ± 2.20
a
1.49 ± 1.72
b
0.4245 that diet and animal play an important role in the flavor profile of the
Barny 0.84 ± 1.16 0.02 ± 0.13 0.0001
a b meat.
Bitter 0.48 ± 0.80 0.23 ± 0.65 0.0039
Bloody 0.25 ± 0.58 0.48 ± 1.05 0.0999
Brothy 1.57 ± 1.80 1.92 ± 1.98 0.0673 3.4. Consumer tests
Browned 0.64 ± 1.12 0.95 ± 1.29 0.0654
Fatty 1.89 ± 2.32 2.30 ± 2.44 0.0778 One hundred and twenty consumers participated in the accep-
a b
Gamey 0.77 ± 1.49 0.08 ± 0.32 0.0016
a b tance test. Fifty-five percent of the panelists were male, and 45% were
Grassy 1.17 ± 1.85 0.13 ± 0.46 0.0003
Juicy 1.67 ± 1.87 b
2.39 ± 2.23 a
0.014 female. Seventy-six (63.3%) panelists were between 18 and 25 years
Livery 0.51 ± 1.22 0.20 ± 0.61 0.0657 of age, 20 (16.7%) were 26–35 years old, 8 (6.7%) were between 36
Metallic 0.57 ± 1.01 0.33 ± 0.77 0.1322 and 45, 8 (6.7%) were in the range of 46–55, and 8 (6.7%) were 56 or
Oxidized/WOF 0.24 ± 0.72 0.08 ± 0.37 0.0715
older. Data recorded on the frequency of steak consumption shows
Roast beef 1.00 ± 1.22 1.22 ± 1.60 0.1788
Salty 1.23 ± 1.29 1.35 ± 1.31 0.2230 that 52 panelists (43.0%) ate steak less than once a month, 49 (40.5%)
Sour 1.28 ± 1.52 1.21 ± 1.54 0.6158 ate steak at least once a month, 18 (14.9%) ate at least once a week,
Sweet 0.44 ± 1.01 0.73 ± 1.59 0.0881 and 2 (1.7%) ate steak at least once a day.
b a
Umami 3.22 ± 1.60 4.78 ± 2.18 0.0001 Table 6 shows the results obtained from the consumer acceptance
a,b
Ratings with the same superscript are not significantly different (α = 0.05). test. All samples were well liked, with an average of a 7.05
120 C. Maughan et al. / Meat Science 90 (2012) 116–121

Table 6
Consumer acceptance (degree of liking) of beef obtained from grain- and grass-fed animals. Three animals of each treatment were evaluated by a 120-member consumer panel.

Attribute Grass 1 Grass 2 Grass 3 Grain 1 Grain 2 Grain 3 P value

c c bc a ab a
Liking 5.93 ± 1.86 6.10 ± 1.43 6.20 ± 1.63 7.15 ± 1.56 6.75 ± 1.69 7.25 ± 1.45 0.0001

Ratings with the same superscript are not significant different (α = 0.05).

(moderately liked) and 6.08 (slightly liked) rating for the meat browned, roast beef, juicy, fatty, sweet, salty, and bloody, respectively.
obtained from the grain- and grass-fed animals on a 9-point hedonic These attributes can therefore be identified as positive attributes.
scale. These ratings were significantly different showing a slightly Similarly, meats obtained from the grass-fed animals are strongly
lower degree of liking for the meat obtained from the grass-fed cattle. correlated to attributes such as oxidized, grassy, barny, bitter, gamey,
No significant differences were observed between the animals from astringent, sour, livery, and metallic which can be associated to
each treatment. However, the acceptance rating for one of the grain- negative terms due to their negative correlation to the degree of liking
fed animals was not significantly different from the acceptance rating (Fig. 1). Correlation values for these attributes were −0.90, −0.90,
of one of the grass-fed animals (Table 6). As explained in Section 3.2, −0.84, −0.83, −0.65, −0.51, −0.33, −0.24, −0.16, and for grassy,
this demonstrates that some of the variability found in meat flavor barny, oxidized, bitter, gamey, livery, metallic, astringent, and sour,
profile is due to animal variation. No significant differences were respectively. It is interesting to observe that even though significant
observed when the consumer data was evaluated for differences differences were observed in the degree of liking from consumers,
between age groups and sex. It is important to note here that these differences were small (see Section 3.3). In addition, these
consumer data obtained is limited to the demographics used in this results suggest that the slightly lower consumer acceptance for meats
research. To extrapolate these results nationwide, consumer tests obtained from the grass-fed animals can be attributed to the increased
should be performed in different parts of the country with intensity of negative attributes such as barny, bitter, grassy, gamey,
significantly more consumers. However, such broad study exceeds and decreased intensity of positive attributes such as juicy and
the scope of this research. umami. It is important to note here that “positive” and “negative”
attributes are defined according to the degree of liking obtained from
3.5. Relating meat flavor profile with consumer acceptance the consumer tests performed in our facilities. Therefore this
classification is relative to the population tested. Consumers with
Principal component analysis (PCA) was performed with the flavor different eating habits might rate some of the “negative” attributes as
profile and consumer acceptance data. The objective of this step was “positive” and vice versa. Given the higher price of grass-fed beef, one
to find relationships between the flavor profiles of the samples and may conclude that demand is driven by its perception of high
their acceptance by consumers and identify the attributes in red nutritional value, with less regard for its sensory properties
meats that drive consumer acceptance. Fig. 1 shows the PCA plot of (Umberger, Boxall, & Lacy, 2009). And as consumers of grass-fed
these data. It can be seen that principal component 1 contributes to beef often point out, cooking methodologies and recipes have been
61.4% of the data variability while principal component 2 contributes developed to enhance eating qualities of grass-fed beef.
to the 16.8% of the variability. These two principal components
explain 78.2% of the variability. It is clear from Fig. 1 that meat 4. Conclusions
obtained from grain-fed animals was strongly correlated with
attributes such as salty, juicy, fatty, sweet, bloody, umami, brothy, A standardized lexicon to describe flavor properties of meats was
roast beef and browned. These attributes are also highly correlated developed by our research team. This flavor lexicon includes 18 terms
with the degree of liking of the samples. Correlation values were 0.97, that describe positive and negative flavor attributes found in meats.
0.88, 0.88, 0.85, 0.82, 0.82, 0.74, 0.71, and 0.68 for brothy, umami, The lexicon was used to describe the flavor profile of meat samples

2
Grass 1

1.5

1
Metallic
Livery
Juicy
Bitter 0.5 Salty
Gamey Fatty Grain 3
PC2 (16.8%)

Barny Sour
Sweet Bloody
Umami
Brothy
0
Roast Beef
-2 -1.5 -1 -0.5 0 0.5 1 1.5 2
Grassy Astringent Liking
Oxidized Browned
Grass 3 -0.5 Grain 1
Grass 2

Grain 2
-1

-1.5

-2
PC1 (61.4%)

Fig. 1. PCA relating the flavor profile of beef obtained from grain and grass-fed cows to consumer acceptance.
 C. Maughan et al. / Meat Science 90 (2012) 116–121 121

obtained from animals that were fed different diets. The newly Drake, M. A., & Civille, G. V. (2003). Flavor lexicons. Comprehensive Reviews in Food
Science and Food Safety, 2, 33–40.
developed flavor lexicon was used to demonstrate that animal diets Elmore, J. S., Mottram, D. S., Enser, M., & Wood, J. D. (2006). Chapter 3: The effects of
can affect the flavor profile of meat. diet, breed, and age of animal at slaughter on the volatile compounds of grilled beef.
Relating the lexicon to consumer acceptance allows for classifica- In F. Shahidi, & H. Weenan (Eds.), Food lipids: Chemistry, flavor and texture (ACS
Symposium Series) (pp. 35–48). : American Chemical Society.
tion of these attributes as positive or negative attributes for a specific Farmer, L. J., & Patterson, R. L. S. (1991). Compounds contributing to meat flavor. Food
consumer market. Terms associated with “positive” attributes are: Chemistry, 40, 201–205.
brothy, umami, roast beef, juicy, browned, fatty, and salty. Terms Gatellier, P., Mercier, Y., Juin, H., & Renerre, M. (2005). Effect of finishing mode
(parture- or mixed-diet) on lipid composition, colour stability and lipid oxidation
associated with “negative” attributes include: oxidized, bitter, barny, in meat from charolais cattle. Meat Science, 69, 175–186.
gamey, grassy, livery, metallic, and astringent. The flavor lexicon can Hamling, A. E., Jenschke, B. E., & Calkins, C. R. (2008). Effects of aging on beef chuck and
be used in the future, along with other consumer acceptance tests, to loin muscles enhanced with ammonium hydroxide and salt. Journal of Animal
Science, 86, 1200–1204.
better understand consumers’ preferences of one type of meat over
James, J. M., & Calkins, C. R. (2008). The influence of cooking rate and holding time on
another. beef chuck and round flavor. Meat Science, 78, 429–437.
Johnson, P. B., & Civille, G. V. (1986). A standardized lexicon of meat WOF descriptors.
Journal of Sensory Studies, 1, 99–104.
Acknowledgements
Melton, S. L., Amiri, M., Davis, G. W., & Backus, W. R. (1982). Flavor and chemical
characteristics of ground beef from grass-, forage-grain- and grain-finished steers.
The authors thank the panel members for their commitment to the Journal of Animal Studies, 55, 77–87.
sensory panel. We would also like to thank the Institutional Review Muñoz, A. M., & Civille, G. V. (1998). Universal, product and attribute specific scaling
and the development of common lexicons in descriptive analysis. Journal of Sensory
Board for approving the project and The Beef Checkoff for financial Studies, 13, 57–75.
support. This paper was approved by the Utah Agricultural Experi- Nofima, Marin, & Denmark, Technical University of (2008). (Version 1.3.2) [Software].
ment Station as paper # 8237. Available from http://www.panelcheck.com/
Ponnampalam, E. N., Mann, N. J., & Sinclair, A. J. (2006). Effect of feeding systems
on omega-3 fatty acids, conjugated linoleic acid and trans fatty acids in Australian
References beef cuts: Potential impact on human health. Asia Pacific Journal of Clinical Nutrition,
15(1), 21–29.
Allen, K., Cornforth, D., Whittier, D., Vasavada, M., & Nummer, B. (2007). Evaluation of Rojas, M. C., & Brewer, M. S. (2007). Effect of natural antioxidants on oxidative stability
high humidity and wet marinade methods for pasteurization of jerky. Journal of of cooked, refrigerated beef and pork. Journal of Food Science, 72, S282–S288.
Food Science, 72, C351–C355. Sitz, B. M., Calkins, C. R., Feuz, D. M., Umberger, W. J., & Eskridge, K. M. (2005). Consumer
Allen, J. A., Vercelloti, J. R., Dupuy, H. P., & Spanier, A. M. (1988). Assessment of beef sensory acceptance and value of domestic, Canadian, and Australian grass-fed beef
flavor quality: A multidisciplinary approach. Food Technology, 133–138. steaks. Journal of Animal Science, 83, 2863–2868.
American Meat Science Association (1995). Research guidelines for cookery, sensory Stelzleni, A. M., & Johnson, D. D. (2008). Effect of days on concentrate feed on sensory
evaluation, and instrumental tenderness measurements of fresh meat. American Meat off-flavor score, off-flavor descriptor and fatty acid profiles for selected muscles
Science Association in cooperation with National Live Stock and Meat Board. from cull beef cows. Meat Science, 79, 382–393.
Chicago, IL: Meat Science Association. Stetzer, A. J., Cadwaller, K., Singh, T. K., McKeith, F. K., & Brewer, M. S. (2008). Effect of
American Society for Testing and Materials (1981). Guidelines for the selection and enhancement and ageing on flavor and volatile compounds in various beef muscles.
training of sensory panel members. American Society for Testing and Materials. Meat Science, 79, 13–19.
Philadelphia, PA: American Society for Testing and Materials. Stetzer, A. J., Tucker, E., McKeith, F. K., & Brewer, M. S. (2007). Quality changes in beef
AOAC, Assn. Official Analytical Chemists, Inc. (1990). Official methods of analysis. (15th Gluteus Medius, Infraspinatus, Psoas Major, Rectis Femoris, and Teres Major enhanced
ed). Procedure 960.39. Arlington, Va, Vol. 2. prior to aging. Journal of Food Science, 72, S242–S246.
Aurousseau, B., Bauchart, D., Galot, A. L., Prache, S., Micol, D., & Priolo, A. (2007a). Indoor Stetzer, A. J., Tucker, E., McKeith, F. K., & Brewer, M. S. (2008). Quality changes in beef
fattening of lambs raised on pasture: 1. Influence of stall finishing duration on lipid Complexus, Serratus, Ventralis, Vastus Lateralis, Vastus Medialis, and Longissimus
classes and fatty acids in the longissimus thoracis muscle. Meat Science, 76, 241–252. Dorsi muscles enhanced prior aging. Journal of Food Science, 73, S6–S10.
Aurousseau, B., Bauchart, D., Galot, A. L., Prache, S., Micol, D., & Priolo, A. (2007b). Indoor Umberger, W. J., Boxall, P. C., & Lacy, R. C. (2009). Role of credence and health
fattening of lambs raised on pasture: 2. Influence of stall finishing duration on information in determining US consumers’ willingness-to-pay for grass-finished
triglyceride and phospholipid fatty acids in the longissimus thoracis muscle. Meat beef. The Australian Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 53, 603–623.
Science, 76, 417–427. Wadhwani, R., Murdia, L. K., & Cornforth, D. P. (2010). Effect of muscle type and cooking
Berry, B. W., Maga, J. A., Clakins, C. R., Wells, L. H., Carpenter, Z. L., & Cross, H. R. (1980). temperature on liver-like off-flavour of five beef chuck muscles. International
Flavor profile analyses of cooked beef loin steaks. Journal of Food Science, 45, Journal of Food Science & Technology, 45, 1277–1283.
1113–1121. Yang, A., Lanari, M. C., Brewster, M., & Tume, R. K. (2002). Lipid stability and meat colour
Brewer, S. M. (2006). The chemistry of beef flavor. National Cattlemen's Beef Association, of beef from pasture- and grain-fed cattle with or without vitamin E supplement.
1–13. Meat Science, 60, 41–50.