Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Experiment Videos

National beef tenderness survey.

J B Morgan1, J W Savell, D S Hale

  • 1Dept. of Anim. Sci., Texas A&M University, College Station 77843-2471.

Journal of Animal Science
|August 1, 1991
PubMed
Summary
This summary is machine-generated.

Related Concept Videos

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Some Indications for the Use of Normal Saline Solution.

Atlanta journal-record of medicine·2022
Same author

Colles's Fracture.

The Southern medical record·2022
Same author

Efficacy of antimicrobial interventions in reducing Salmonella enterica, Shiga toxin-producing Escherichia coli, Campylobacter, and Escherichia coli biotype I surrogates on non-chilled and chilled, skin-on and skinless pork.

Meat science·2020
Same author

National Beef Quality Audit-2016: Transportation, mobility, and harvest-floor assessments of targeted characteristics that affect quality and value of cattle, carcasses, and by-products.

Translational animal science·2020
Same author

National Beef Quality Audit-2016: Phase 1, Face-to-face interviews.

Translational animal science·2020
Same author

National Beef Quality Audit-2016: Transportation, mobility, live cattle, and carcass assessments of targeted producer-related characteristics that affect value of market cows and bulls, their carcasses, and associated by-products.

Translational animal science·2020
Same journal

In vivo methane abatement by pyromellitic diimide in sheep and redirection of rumen hydrogen by co-administered feed additives.

Journal of animal science·2026
Same journal

Ruminal 5-hydroxytryptophan increases serum serotonin and peripheral vasodilation in growing beef cattle.

Journal of animal science·2026
Same journal

Water intake and consumption behaviour of colony and privately-owned healthy domestic cats fed 100% dry, 50% dry and 50% wet, and 100% wet diets: A comparison of research and home environments.

Journal of animal science·2026
Same journal

Gestational Vitamin and Mineral Supplementation in F0 Beef Heifers: Impacts on F1 Heifer Nutrient Digestibility, Metabolic Balance, and F1 Dam and F2 Fetus Development.

Journal of animal science·2026
Same journal

A self-reinforcing transcriptional loop: ELF5 directly activates the STAT5B promoter to orchestrate milk protein synthesis in water buffalo.

Journal of animal science·2026
Same journal

Provision of porcine milk oligosaccharides to support the weaning transition in nursery pigs fed diets including bovine milk co-products.

Journal of animal science·2026
See all related articles

Beef tenderness varies significantly by cut, with rib and loin being more tender than chuck and round. Roasts are generally more tender than steaks, and USDA Choice chuck shows improved tenderness over Select grades.

Area of Science:

  • Food Science
  • Animal Science
  • Meat Science

Background:

  • Beef tenderness is a critical factor influencing consumer satisfaction and purchasing decisions.
  • Variability in beef tenderness exists among different subprimal cuts and retail formats.
  • Understanding these variations is essential for the beef industry to meet consumer expectations.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To assess the average tenderness and sensory attributes of beef subprimal cuts available in U.S. retail markets.
  • To compare tenderness across different beef primals (chuck, rib, loin, round) and forms (steaks vs. roasts).
  • To evaluate the impact of USDA quality grades on beef tenderness.

Main Methods:

  • Retail beef cuts were sourced from 14 U.S. metropolitan areas.

Related Experiment Videos

  • Samples underwent sensory evaluation and Warner-Bratzler shear force analysis at Texas A&M University.
  • Shear force values were used as an objective measure of beef tenderness.

    • Main Results:

    • Overall mean shear force was 3.65 kg; round (4.31 kg) and chuck (3.72 kg) were tougher than loin (3.17 kg) and rib (3.36 kg).
    • Steaks from round and chuck primals were significantly tougher than their roast counterparts.
    • USDA Choice chuck cuts exhibited better tenderness (fewer high shear force values) than Select and No-roll grades.

    Conclusions:

    • Significant differences in beef tenderness exist among retail subprimal cuts, with round and chuck requiring improvement.
    • Roasts are consistently more tender than steaks from the same subprimal.
    • Further research into pre- and post-slaughter factors is necessary to enhance beef tenderness variability.