HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Bowling, R. A. Articles by Hoke, K. E. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Bowling, R. A. Articles by Hoke, K. E.

Vacuum Packaging Systems for Subprimal Beef Cuts¹

Texas Agricultural Experiment Station^,3, College Station 77843

Abstract

Ribs, knuckles and blade chucks were vacuum packaged via a chamber heat seal (CHS) system or a nozzle clip seal (NCS) system and were stored at 1 C for 7, 14, 21, 35 or 42 days. Three observers evaluated each of the 295 primal cuts for surface discoloration, appearance of fat covering and incidence of off-odor. Total psychrotrophic microbial counts were obtained on randomly selected samples at each storage interval. Steaks derived from each primal cut were used for retail display and sensory evaluation. The primary visual difference observed between packaging systems was the higher vacuum score attained by use of the CHS system. Cuts stored in different packaging systems did not differ (P<.05) with regard to evaporative or purge loss. With increased storage time, weight loss increased and retail caselife was reduced for cuts packaged in both systems. Primal cuts stored in leaker packages for 21 days had higher microbial counts, lower scores for appearance of primal cuts and greater trim losses (1.2% for intact packages vs 4.8% for leaker packages). Differences between packaging systems in package leaker rates appear to be of greater economic significance than differences due to degree of vacuum or other variables involved with intact packages.

¹ Technical Article 12817, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station.

² Agricultural Marketing Research Institute, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture, Beltsville, MD.

³ Meats and Meat Chemistry Section, Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University. This study was supported by St. Regis Paper Co., Dallas, TX and Agricultural Marketing Research Institute, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (Contract 12-14-1001-407). Reference to a company or product name is for specific information only and does not imply approval or recommendation of the product by the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the Texas Agricultural Experiment Station to the exclusion of others that may be suitable.