J. Anim Sci.
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wyle, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, G. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wyle, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, G. C.
J. Anim. Sci. 2003. 81:441-448
© 2003 American Society of Animal Science

Effectiveness of the SmartMV prototype BeefCam System to sort beef carcasses into expected palatability groups1

A. M. Wyle2, D. J. Vote, D. L. Roeber, R. C. Cannell3, K. E. Belk4, J. A. Scanga, M. Goldberg5, J. D. Tatum and G. C. Smith

Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins 80523-1171

4 Correspondence:
Phone: 970-491-5826; fax: 970-491-0278; E-mail:
keith.belk{at}colostate.edu.


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results and Discussion
 Implications
 Literature Cited
 
This study was conducted to determine the effectiveness of the SmartMV prototype BeefCam Video Imaging System (prototype BeefCam) for classifying beef carcasses into palatability ("certified" or "not certified" as palatable) groups. Carcasses (n = 769) were selected from four beef-packing plants to represent three USDA quality grade groups (Top Choice, TC; Low Choice, LC; and Select, SE). Following chilling, a prototype BeefCam image of the longissimus muscle was obtained for each carcass. Strip loins were collected from the left side of each carcass and aged for 10 d; Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF; n = 769) values and consumer panel ratings (hedonic, end-anchored, 9-point ratings for overall like/dislike; n = 500 carcasses) were obtained for cooked steaks. Using information from the images, two regression models were developed to predict the first principal component of WBSF and consumer panel ratings for sorting carcasses based on expected eating quality. Model I used only prototype BeefCam output, whereas Model II used prototype BeefCam output and a coded value for quality grade group. For both models, carcasses with a predicted value of less than 0.0 were certified as producing palatable beef. Additional carcasses (n = 292) were evaluated at a fifth and separate packing plant by prototype BeefCam to validate Models I and II. A strip loin was collected from each carcass and WBSF was measured after 14 d of aging. The percentages of validation carcasses that generated tough (WBSF >= 4.5 kg) steaks were 6.5, 5.8, 10.7, and 7.9% for, TC, LC, SE, and all carcasses, respectively. Use of Model I certified 51.9, 47.6, 43.8, and 47.3% of TC, LC, SE, and all carcasses, respectively. Of the carcasses certified by use of Model I, 0.0, 0.0, 4.1, and 1.4% of TC, LC, SE, and all carcasses, respectively, generated tough steaks. Use of Model II certified 59.7, 47.6, 25.0, and 42.1% of TC, LC, SE, and all carcasses, respectively. Of the carcasses certified by use of Model II, 2.2, 0.0, 3.6, and 1.6% of TC, LC, SE, and all carcasses, respectively, generated tough steaks. For both models, the frequency of carcasses that produced tough steaks in the certified group was lower (P < 0.05) for all validation carcasses sampled compared with that of the original carcass population. Based on the decrease in the frequency of carcasses that produced tough steaks, further development of a commercial BeefCam system is warranted.

Key Words: Beef • Classification • Palatability • Tenderness • Video Cameras


   Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
Materials and Methods
 Results and Discussion
 Implications
 Literature Cited
 
Wulf et al. (1997) and Tatum et al. (1997) reported that objective measurements of beef longissimus muscle (LM) color were related strongly enough to beef tenderness that carcasses could be sorted according to LM color differences to produce groups of carcasses that differ in palatability. Research conducted by Gerrard et al. (1996) had suggested that image analysis could be used to quantify both the marbling and color of beef LM. These findings led researchers at Colorado State University and Hunter Associates Laboratory (Reston, VA) to develop a prototype video imaging system (prototype BeefCam) because video image analysis technology could be quickly implemented and is noninvasive. Pilot studies (Wyle et al., 1998) indicated that the prototype BeefCam could identify carcasses likely to produce steaks that were tender, based on Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF) values, after a 14-d aging period. However, those studies were limited because too few carcasses produced tough (WBSF >= 4.5 kg) steaks. This study tested the prototype BeefCam, used alone or in conjunction with USDA quality grades assigned by line graders, as a tool for sorting beef carcasses into expected palatability groups.


   Materials and Methods
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
Results and Discussion
 Implications
 Literature Cited
 
Carcass Selection
Carcasses (n = 769) were selected from four commercial, geographically dispersed beef-packing plants to represent three quality groups, including the upper two-thirds of USDA Choice (Top Choice; n = 241), the lower one-third of USDA Choice (Low Choice; n = 301), and USDA Select (n = 227). Carcasses from these quality groups were chosen to generate a population of steaks with a range in expected eating quality and to provide a broad-based test of the prototype BeefCam. Sampling from four packing plants allowed testing of the prototype BeefCam under differing commercial lighting and carcass management (e.g., chilling temperature, length of chilling) conditions.

Data Collection
Prototype BeefCam (calibrated before each use with a white standard card) was used to obtain an image of each LM (such that the entire surface of the exposed LM at the 12th-/13th-rib interface was included in the frame). The camera shroud, which contained four 30-watt tungsten halogen bulbs for lighting, was rested on the 12th-/13th-rib interface and care was taken to properly align the camera unit with the exposed LM so that no image distortion occurred during the 4 s required to obtain an image. Digital images were later processed using proprietary software to obtain measurements for LM area (LMA), lean color, and fat color for each carcass. Measurements for intramuscular fat were also made, however, because specular reflectance was commonly measured as intramuscular fat; those measurements were not considered reliable to use in the statistical analyses.

The USDA-AMS grading supervisors assigned maturity and marbling scores and adjusted preliminary yield grade and percentage of kidney/pelvic/heart fat to each carcass. The USDA personnel were given as much time as necessary and unlimited access to the carcasses to assign yield grade and quality grade factors. Colorado State University personnel recorded the hot carcass weight, USDA line grader quality grade, and measured the LMA for each carcass. Additionally, for carcasses graded Choice by USDA line graders, the position in Choice was recorded (Lower one-third or Upper two-thirds) as assigned by plant personnel.

Warner-Bratzler Shear Force Determination
Strip loins (IMPS 180; USDA, 1988) were obtained from the left side of carcasses and transported to the Meat Science Laboratory at Colorado State University. At 10 d postmortem, strip loins were trimmed and sliced to generate 2.54-cm-thick steaks. The first steak (at the anterior end) from each strip loin was frozen (-20°C) for subsequent WBSF analysis. The second, third, fourth, and fifth steaks from each strip loin were packaged together and frozen (-20°C) for subsequent use in consumer taste panels.

Following 24 h of tempering at 4°C, steaks subjected to WBSF analysis were cooked on a Hobart Char Broiler (model CB 51, Hobart, Troy, OH), turning each steak every 4 min until reaching a final internal temperature of 70°C as monitored by an Omega type K thermocouple (Omega Engineering Corp., Stamford, CT). Cooked steaks were then allowed to equilibrate to room temperature (approximately 25°C) before removing six to 10 cores (1.27 cm in diameter) parallel to the muscle fiber orientation. A single peak WBSF measurement was obtained for each core using a WBSF machine (G-R Electric Manufacturing Co., Manhattan, KS). Individual-core peak shear force values were averaged to assign a mean peak WBSF value to each steak. Any steak with a mean WBSF value of less than 4.5 kg was considered to be "tender," whereas any steak with a mean WBSF value that was equal to or greater than 4.5 kg was considered to be "tough" (Shackelford et al., 1991).

Consumer Taste Panel Tests
Strip loin steaks generated from 500 carcasses (151 steaks from Select carcasses, 200 steaks from Low Choice carcasses, and 149 steaks from Top Choice carcasses) were evaluated and rated for palatability by an untrained consumer panel. Talmey-Drake, Inc. (Denver, CO) randomly recruited 960 consumers for participation from the Fort Collins, CO area. Consumers were selected (using random phone numbers) to represent a cross section of the population in the Fort Collins area and represented a broad range of ages, occupations, income levels, and education levels, but were slightly less diverse demographically relative to ethnicity (Table 1Go).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Frequency distributions for demographic information describing consumers included in the untrained taste panel
 
At each session, 10 to 12 consumers were seated in random fashion in a room with standard fluorescent lighting (460 lx). Before starting each session, each consumer was asked to read and sign an informed consent form approved by the Colorado State University Use of Humans in Research Committee, which described the research and acknowledging that they agreed to participate in a research project.

All steak samples were prepared for the consumer taste panel using the same methods as were used for WBSF determinations. After each sample was cooked, it was cut into 1.0 x 1.0 x 2.5-cm pieces and the pieces were placed in a warming oven (50°C) until serving. Before serving the first sample, consumers were provided with verbal instructions regarding the questions that they would be asked about the samples on the standardized ballot. Consumers were provided with distilled water and unsalted saltine crackers and reminded to take a bite of cracker and a sip of water between tasting samples to remove any lingering flavor from previous samples.

Steaks were assigned randomly to sessions, and samples of each steak were given to at least three consumers within a session, in a manner that allowed a steak sample to be tasted by only one consumer at a time within a session. Eight samples were served to each consumer during a session, and consumers were not allowed to participate in more than one session. Consumers were asked to rate each sample for overall like/dislike, tenderness like/dislike, flavor like/dislike, and juiciness like/dislike using 9-point, end-anchored, hedonic scales where, in all cases, 1 = dislike extremely and 9 = like extremely. In addition, consumers were asked whether (yes or no) they would be pleased with the sample had they actually purchased it and prepared it at home.

Statistical Analyses
The first principal component of WBSF values and consumer ratings for overall like/dislike was computed using a correlation matrix to combine the objective measurement of tenderness (WBSF) with consumer perceptions of steak palatability in order to obtain a single measurement of steak quality (SAS Inst., Inc., Cary, NC). This first principal component explained 65.3% of the standardized variance between the two variables, and the eigenvector loadings for the first principal component were 0.707 for WBSF values and -0.707 for consumer ratings for overall palatability.

Two models were developed to predict the first principal component of WBSF values and consumer ratings for overall like/dislike: 1) the first model was a regression equation that used only prototype BeefCam measures as independent variables; 2) the second model was a regression equation developed to augment the application of the USDA quality grades by line graders, and included independent prototype BeefCam measures as well as a coded value for USDA quality grade (1 = Select, 2 = Lower one-third Choice, 3 = Upper two-thirds Choice). These two models were developed by forcing color measurements for lean and fat (lean L*, lean a*, lean b*, fat L*, fat a*, and fat b*) into the models before using the forward model selection procedure with the significance level for entry set at 85% ({alpha} = 0.15) to add additional variables. The variables available for selection into the models included two- and three-way interactions between and among lean color measurements, two- and three-way interactions between and among fat color measurements, LMA, two-way interactions between LMA and lean color measurements, and for Model II, a coded value for USDA quality grade group. For both models, LMA was not added by forward model selection procedures; however, LMA was included in the final models because the interactions, LMA x lean L* and LMA x lean a* were added during forward model selection procedures. To test the accuracy and precision of the regression models, R2 and Mallow’s C(p) statistics were computed and reported for each (SAS).

To determine the effectiveness of the regression models for sorting beef carcasses into groups according to expected palatability ("certified" or "not certified" as palatable), the percentages of carcasses that produced tough (WBSF >= 4.5 kg) steaks and the percentages of consumer responses indicating that they were not pleased with the overall palatability of a steak were computed. Chi-square tests were then used to determine whether these percentages differed between the certified and not certified groups and all carcasses by quality grade groups (SAS).

Prototype BeefCam Validation
To test the prototype BeefCam models on a completely different population of cattle and at a packing plant not previously visited, strip loins (n = 292) were obtained from carcasses selected by Cannell et al. (2002). Prototype BeefCam measurements were obtained for each carcass. The strip loin of each carcass was removed, aged for a period of 14-d, and fabricated into 2.54-cm steaks for WBSF determination. Warner-Bratzler shear force determination was conducted using the methods outlined earlier.

To determine the effectiveness of prototype BeefCam for sorting beef carcasses into different palatability classes, the percentages of carcasses that produced tough (WBSF >= 4.5 kg) steaks within each class were tested using Chi-square tests (SAS).


   Results and Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results and Discussion
Implications
 Literature Cited
 
Prototype BeefCam Model Development
The beta coefficients for the two regression models (Model I and Model II) to sort beef carcasses into classes of either certified as palatable or not certified as palatable are presented in Table 2Go. Lean and fat color measurements (CIE lean L*, lean a*, lean b*, fat L*, fat a*, and fat b*) have been marginally correlated to beef carcass palatability in other studies (Hodgson et al., 1992; Wulf et al., 1997; Hilton et al., 1998). In this study, all of the lean and fat color measurements were highly significant (P < 0.05) when included in either of the prototype BeefCam regression models. In addition, lean L* x lean a* and lean a* x lean b* interactions were included because these interactions provided information pertaining to how L*, a*, and b* colors related to each other in three-dimensional color space. The LMA has traditionally been thought of as an indicator of carcass yield and not palatability, but in this data set, LMA was related to steak palatability. Although it is uncertain as to why larger LM were an indication of less tender beef, prototype BeefCam measured LMA (BeefCam LMA), BeefCam LMA x lean L*, and BeefCam LMA x lean a* were included in both prototype BeefCam models. In prototype BeefCam Model II, the quality grade code was included as an estimate of marbling that could be provided in real-time on the grading chain. This was included in Model II to simulate a quality grade augmentation system where machine measurements could be added to the current quality grading system.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Prototype BeefCam regression models developed to predict the first principal component of Warner-Bratzler shear force values and consumer ratings for overall like/dislike of strip loin steaks and to categorize beef carcasses into groups "certified" as having acceptable expected palatability or "not certified" as having acceptable expected palatability
 
In this study, scores (predicted first principal component) for predicted palatability (from both Model I and Model II) ranged from -1.3 to 1.9. Any carcass with a prototype BeefCam palatability score < 0.0 was certified as producing palatable beef, whereas any carcass with a prototype BeefCam palatability score >= 0.0 was not certified. A palatability score of 0.0 was chosen as the threshold level because at this value approximately 50% of the carcasses were certified as tender and 50% percent were not certified as tender. This threshold level could be adjusted to fit the needs of a specific branded beef program or packing plant. If the percentage of carcasses certified by prototype BeefCam was increased, then the percentage of carcasses likely to produce tough or unacceptably palatable beef that was certified would increase. If the percentage of carcasses certified by prototype BeefCam was decreased, then the percentage of carcasses likely to produce tough or unacceptably palatable beef that were certified would also decrease.

There was no (P > 0.05) difference in the percentage of tough steaks as determined by WBSF or in the percentage of consumer responses indicating that steaks were unacceptable in palatability between the Top Choice and Low Choice quality grade groups. The Select quality grade had a higher (P < 0.05) percentage of tough steaks according to WBSF and a higher (P < 0.05) percentage of consumer responses, indicating that steaks were unacceptable in palatability than either the Top Choice or Low Choice quality grade groups.

To determine whether the prototype BeefCam successfully sorted carcasses into groups that differed relative to the overall palatability of their steaks, results of sorting were compared with both WBSF values (Table 3Go) and consumer responses (yes or no, regarding the question "Would you be pleased with the sample had you purchased it and prepared it at home?") for beef from carcasses sorted into the certified vs not certified groups (Table 4Go).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 3. Percentages of carcasses "certified" using prototype BeefCam output alone (Model I), or prototype BeefCam to augment USDA quality grade groups (Model II), and percentages of unacceptable carcasses based on Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF) values for steaks (n = 769)
 

View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 4. Percentages of carcasses "certified" using prototype BeefCam alone (Model I), or prototype BeefCam to augment USDA quality grade groups (Model II), and percentages of consumer panelist responses that indicated that they would not be pleased with the overall palatability
 
For Model I, the percentage of carcasses producing tough beef (WBSF >= 4.5 kg) or beef that was unacceptable in overall palatability (consumers answered "no", I was not pleased with this beef) was lower (P < 0.05) for those carcasses certified using prototype BeefCam than for the carcass population as a whole. With respect to WBSF values, certification by use of prototype BeefCam Model I did not lower (P > 0.05) the percentage of carcasses that produced tough steaks in either the Top Choice or Low Choice groups compared to no sorting, but lowered (P < 0.05) the percentage of carcasses that produced tough steaks in the Select group compared with no sorting (Table 3Go). The Select carcasses certified by the prototype BeefCam Model I produced 33% fewer steaks with WBS >= 4.5 kg than did the original sample population of Select carcasses.

With respect to evaluations by consumers regarding whether they were pleased with the palatability of steaks, use of prototype BeefCam Model I to certify carcasses had no effect on percentages of displeased panelists when steaks from Top Choice or Low Choice carcasses were evaluated, but was able to lower percentages of displeased panelists when steaks from Select carcasses were evaluated compared with no sorting (Table 4Go).

Prototype BeefCam Model I certified a lower percentage of carcasses within the Select quality grade than within the Top Choice or Low Choice quality groups, even though a measurement of marbling was not included in the model. Use of prototype BeefCam Model I also did not identify all the carcasses that would produce steaks considered tender (WBSF < 4.5 kg) or pleasing in overall palatability to panelists; the percentage of carcasses in the not certified group that produced steaks that were tender was 79.7% based on WBSF values (Table 3Go), and the percentage of consumer responses indicating they were pleased with the palatability was 69.4% (Table 4Go). Although the identification of tender carcasses could be improved, all carcasses not certified by prototype BeefCam Model I had a higher (P < 0.05) percentage of steaks with a WBSF value >= 4.5 kg and a higher (P < 0.05) percentage of displeased panelists compared with no sorting.

Use of prototype BeefCam Model II to sort carcasses resulted in lower (P < 0.05) percentages of carcasses producing tough (WBSF >= 4.5 kg or consumers answering "No, I was not pleased with this beef") steaks for those carcasses certified compared to the entire sample carcass population. With respect to both WBSF values and consumer acceptability of overall palatability, certification by use of prototype BeefCam Model II did not lower the percentage of carcasses that produced tough steaks in either the Top Choice or Low Choice groups compared to no sorting, but lowered (P < 0.05) the percentage of carcasses that produced tough steaks in the Select group compared with no sorting (Tables 3 and 4GoGo). However, the percentage of unacceptable steaks (based on consumer acceptability or WBSF) generated by carcasses, within a quality group, that were certified by prototype BeefCam Model II did not differ (P > 0.05). Use of prototype BeefCam Model II also did not identify all of the carcasses that produced tender steaks; the percentage of carcasses in the not certified group that produced tender steaks was 76.8% based on WBSF values and the percentage of consumer responses indicating they were pleased with the palatability was 69.4% (Table 4Go). Nevertheless, all carcasses not certified by prototype BeefCam Model II had a higher (P < 0.05) percentage of steaks with a WBSF value >= 4.5 kg and a higher (P < 0.05) percentage of displeased panelists compared with no sorting.

There were advantages to using Model II rather than Model I. Use of the prototype BeefCam Model II lowered numerically (P = 0.22) the percentage of certified carcasses that generated tough steaks according to WBSF (5.6%) compared to use of prototype BeefCam Model I (7.8%). Prototype BeefCam Model II certified a higher (P < 0.05) percentage of Top Choice carcasses compared to Model I (78.0% vs 57.3%) with essentially no change (4.8% for Model II vs 4.3% for Model I) in the percentage of certified carcasses that had tough (WBSF >= 4.5 kg) steaks. Even though the prototype BeefCam Model II certified a lower (P < 0.05) percentage (19.8%) of Select carcasses than did prototype BeefCam Model I (37.5%), a lower (P < 0.05) percentage of Select carcasses certified by use of prototype BeefCam Model II produced tough (WBSF >= 4.5 kg) steaks (4.4%) than did carcasses certified by use of prototype BeefCam Model I (16.5%). Additionally Select carcasses certified by use of the prototype BeefCam Model II had a percentage of tough steaks (as measured by WBSF and by consumer acceptability) similar to the unsorted Top Choice or Low Choice quality groups. The advantages for using Model II are most likely due to the inclusion of a measurement of marbling in the model and suggest that improving the ability of the prototype BeefCam to accurately segment and measure marbling could enhance the sorting of carcasses based on expected eating quality.

Prototype BeefCam Validation
The effectiveness of prototype BeefCam carcass-sorting Models to classify beef carcasses based on projected eating quality was validated on a different group of carcasses (Table 5Go). Prototype BeefCam Model I certified 47.3% of the carcasses in the complete validation population and of those carcasses certified by prototype BeefCam Model I, only 1.4% (0.0% of the Top Choice, 0.0% of the Low Choice, and 4.1% of the Select) generated steaks that were tough (WBSF >= 4.5 kg). Of the carcasses certified by prototype BeefCam Model I, there was a lower (P < 0.05) frequency of carcasses that produced tough steaks than in the complete validation population of carcasses, but there was no difference (P > 0.05) in the frequency of tough steaks between certified and not certified groups of beef carcasses stratified by quality group (Table 5Go).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 5. Percentage of carcasses "certified" using prototype BeefCam alone (Model I), or prototype BeefCam to augment USDA quality grade groups (Model II), and percentages of unacceptable carcasses based on Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF) values for steaks (n = 292) obtained to validate use of prototype BeefCam
 
Prototype BeefCam Model II certified 42.1% of the carcasses in the complete validation population; of those carcasses certified by prototype BeefCam Model II, only 1.6% (2.2% of the Top Choice, 0.0% of the Low Choice, and 3.6% of the Select) generated steaks that were tough (WBSF >= 4.5 kg; Table 5Go). Of the carcasses certified by prototype BeefCam Model II, there was a lower (P < 0.05) frequency of carcasses that produced tough steaks than in the complete validation population of carcasses, but there was no difference (P > 0.05) in the frequency of tough steaks between certified and not certified groups of beef carcasses stratified by quality group (Table 5Go).

Carcasses included in the validation population produced steaks that were exceptionally tender (only 7.9% had WBSF >= 4.5 kg). As a result, it was difficult for either of the two prototype BeefCam Models to decrease significantly the percentage of certified carcasses that produced tough steaks within quality group. The percentage of certified carcasses (using prototype BeefCam Model I or Model II) that generated tough steaks (WBSF >= 4.5 kg) was less than 4.1% for all quality groups. Results of validation indicated that the prototype BeefCam is capable of sorting beef carcasses into groups based on expected palatability of their strip loin steaks.

Several invasive systems have been tested for their use in predicting cooked steak tenderness or sorting beef carcasses according to expected tenderness of their steaks. One of the earliest of those systems was the Armour Tenderometer, which was found to be only marginally capable of predicting WBSF values and organoleptic tenderness ratings for LM steaks (Parrish et al., 1973). Swatland (1991) developed a prototype optical fiber probe for beef palatability prediction and reported that the reflectance of initially polarized light seemed to be effective in predicting beef palatability. Further development of that probe indicated that its measurements were moderately correlated to the tenderness of LM steaks aged 21 d (Swatland et al., 1998), but commercial tests of this probe have not been reported. George et al. (1997) and Belk et al. (2001) both concluded that the Tendertec beef-grading instrument was not useful in explaining differences in palatability of steaks from tested carcasses, probably because of the lack of meaningful differences in amount of connective tissue in LM from youthful carcasses. Use of 3-d postmortem slice shear force values to predict 14-d postmortem shear force values, both obtained from cooked beef samples, has been reported to be effective in accurately identifying carcasses likely to produce tender steaks (Shackelford et al., 1999; Shackelford et al., 2001). Even though evaluations of the slice shear force classification system have been positive, packers have not adopted this technology because of the costs associated with the removal and testing of a steak from each carcass.

A noninvasive classification system designed to augment the current USDA quality grades was proposed by Wulf and Page (2000). That system, which incorporated the use of colorimeter readings (L*, a*, and b*) and a measurement of hump height into computations that also utilized USDA quality grade factors, demonstrated that noninvasive measurements could be used to enhance the ability of current USDA quality grading to sort carcasses based upon expected palatability of their steaks (Wulf and Page, 2000). The findings of Wulf and Page (2000), along with the results of the present study, suggest that there are alternatives to invasive techniques to sort beef carcasses into groups that differ in expected eating quality.


   Implications
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results and Discussion
 Implications
Literature Cited
 
In these populations of beef carcasses, sorting using the prototype BeefCam reduced, but did not eliminate, carcasses in the "certified" group that generated steaks that were tough or unacceptable in overall palatability. Commercial development and testing of the prototype BeefCam is warranted. The BeefCam might ultimately be useful for identification of carcasses for inclusion in a branded beef program that includes claims or assurances of tenderness.


   Footnotes
 
1 This project was funded by the Cattlemen’s Beef Board through the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association, Englewood, CO. Back

2 Present address: Research Management Systems USA, 2627 Redwing Rd., Fort Collins, CO 80526. Back

3 Present address: McDonald’s Corporation, 2915 Jorie Blvd., Oak Brook, IL 60523. Back

5 Present address: Smart Machine Vision, Inc., 11491 Sunset Hills Rd., VA 20190. Back

Received for publication April 24, 2002. Accepted for publication October 23, 2002.


   Literature Cited
Top
 Abstract
 Introduction
 Materials and Methods
 Results and Discussion
 Implications
 Literature Cited
 


Belk, K. E., M. H. George, J. D. Tatum, G. G. Hilton, R. K. Miller, M. Koohmaraie, J. O. Reagan, and G. C. Smith. 2001. Evaluation of the Tendertec beef grading instrument to predict the tenderness of steaks from beef carcasses. J. Anim. Sci. 79:688–697.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Cannell, R. C., K. E. Belk, J. D. Tatum, J. W. Wise, P. L. Chapman, J. A. Scanga, and G. C. Smith. 2002. On-line evaluation of a commercial video image analysis system (Computer Vision System TM) to predict beef carcass red meat yield and for augmenting application of USDA yield grades. J. Anim. Sci. 80:1195–1201.

George, M. H., J. D. Tatum, H. G. Dolezal, J. B. Morgan, J. W. Wise, C. R. Calkins, T. Gordon, J. O. Reagan, and G. C. Smith. 1997. Comparison of USDA quality grade with Tendertec for the assessment of beef palatability. J. Anim. Sci. 75:1538–1546.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Gerrard, D. E., X. Gao, and J. Tan. 1996. Beef marbling and color score determination by image processing. J. Food Sci. 61:145–147.

Hilton, G. G., J. D. Tatum, S. E. Williams, K. E. Belk, F. L. Williams, J. W. Wise, and G. C. Smith. 1998. An evaluation of current and alternative systems for quality grading carcasses of mature slaughter cows. J. Anim. Sci. 76:2094–2103.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Hodgson, R. R., K. E. Belk, J. W. Savell, H. R. Cross, and F. L. Williams. 1992. Development of a quantitative quality grading system for mature cow carcasses. J. Anim. Sci. 70:1840–1847.[Abstract]

Parrish, F. C., Jr., D. G. Olson, B. E. Miner, R. B. Young, and R. L. Snell. 1973. Relationship of tenderness measurements made by the Armour Tenderometer to certain objective, subjective and organoleptic properties of bovine muscle. J. Food Sci. 38:1214–1219.

Shackelford, S. D., J. B. Morgan, J. W. Morgan, J. W. Savell, and H. R. Cross. 1991. Identification of threshold levels for Warner-Bratzler shear force in top loin steaks. J. Muscle Foods 2:289–296.

Shackelford, S. D., T. L. Wheeler, and M. Koohmaraie. 1999. Tenderness classification of beef: Design and analysis of a system to measure beef longissimus shear force under commercial processing conditions. J. Anim. Sci. 77:1474–1481.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Shackelford, S. D., T. L. Wheeler, M. K. Meade, J. O. Reagan, B. L. Byrnes, and M. Koohmaraie. 2001. Consumer impressions of Tender Select beef. J. Anim. Sci. 79:2605–2614.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Swatland, H. J. 1991. Evaluation of probe designs to measure connective tissue fluorescence in carcasses. J. Anim. Sci. 69:1983–1988.[Abstract]

Swatland, H. J., J. C. Brooks, and M. F. Miller. 1998. Possibilities for predicting taste and tenderness of broiled beef steaks using an optical-electromechanical probe. Meat Sci. 50:1–12.

Tatum, J. D., M. H. George, K. E. Belk, and G. C. Smith. 1997. Development of a palatability assurance "critical control points" (PACCP) model to reduce the incidence of beef palatability problems. Final Report submitted to the Natl. Cattlemen’s Beef Assoc., Englewood, CO. Dept. of Anim. Sci., Colorado State University, Fort Collins.

USDA. 1988. Institutional Meat Purchase Specifications for Fresh Beef. Agric. Marketing Serv., USDA, Washington, DC.

Wulf, D. M., S. F. O’Connor, J. D. Tatum, and G. C. Smith. 1997. Using objective measures of color to predict beef longissimus tenderness. J. Anim. Sci. 75:684–692.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Wulf, D. M., and J. K. Page. 2000. Using measurements of muscle color, pH, and electrical impedance to augment the current USDA beef quality grading standards and improve the accuracy and precision of sorting carcasses into palatability groups. J. Anim. Sci. 78:2595–2607.[Abstract/Free Full Text]

Wyle, A. M., R. C. Cannell, K. E. Belk, M. Goldberg, R. Riffle, and G. C. Smith. 1998. An evaluation of the portable HunterLab Video Imaging System (BeefCam) as a tool to predict tenderness of beef carcasses using objective measures of lean and fat color. Final Report to the Natl. Cattlemen’s Beef Assoc., Englewood, CO. Dept. of Anim. Sci., Colorado State University, Fort Collins.


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 J ANIM SCIHome page
T. L. Wheeler, S. D. Shackelford, and M. Koohmaraie
The accuracy and repeatability of untrained laboratory consumer panelists in detecting differences in beef longissimus tenderness
J Anim Sci, February 1, 2004; 82(2): 557 - 562.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Wyle, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, G. C.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Wyle, A. M.
Right arrow Articles by Smith, G. C.

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS