Background

Various decontamination systems both chemical and physical, are utilized throughout the production chain to reduce pathogen contamination on cattle hides, carcasses, and beef trim (Sofos, 2005). Numerous studies have evaluated antimicrobials based on their decontamination efficacy. It has been shown multiple intervention steps are more effective than any single intervention (Bacon et al., 2000). Therefore, sequential decontamination processes are commonly applied within the beef industry as a more effective method for controlling risk of pathogens. Although a variety of chemical interventions have been considered, lactic acid (LA), peroxyacetic acid (PAA), and lactic/citric acid blends (LAC) are among the most commonly utilized interventions with beef trimmings and primal cuts; however, the potential impact of flavor attributed to beef products has not yet been a topic of study.

The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of a combination of commonly used chemical interventions on the flavor profile of beef. Harvest floor and cold product interventions were included to identify differences in flavor. The objectives were met by using a trained sensory panel to objectively quantify beef flavor attributes.

Methodology

The treatment outline was derived from combinations of three interventions (CON, no interventions applied; aPAA, acidified peroxyacetic acid; LA, lactic acid) applied on a hot product, and 4 interventions applied while cold (CON, aPAA, LA, LAC, lactic/citric acid blends). Each unique treatment combination was replicated 30 times. Whole beef briskets were collected from the harvest floor and transported hot to the Colorado State University Meat Lab. Briskets were trimmed to remove outside surface layer and minimize excess fat. Briskets were treated at a constant rate starting with a randomly assigned harvest floor intervention using a custom‐built spray cabinet. After chilling at 2°C for 24 h, briskets were treated with a randomly assigned cold intervention. Briskets were stored at 2°C for 48‐72 hours, twice ground, and formed into 1 oz patties. Samples were frozen at ‐20°C until analysis. Each sample was analyzed by a trained sensory panel to provide ratings for beef flavor attributes. Six trained panelists evaluated twelve samples per panel; a total of 30 panel sessions were conducted.

Findings

The findings of this study suggest that the flavor performance of beef that has been treated with chemical interventions is not a result of a combination of treatments on the hot and cold sides of the harvest process, rather, the impact of hot and cold interventions are independent of one another. The only statistically significant differences for flavor attributes among ground beef samples treated with intervention chemicals were found among the hot interventions (Table 1). The cold interventions did not statistically influence the flavor profile of the ground beef samples. Treating warm trimmings sources with LA resulted in the greatest intensity of sour and chemical notes. Beef trimmings treated hot with LA resulted in the greatest magnitude in difference in sour flavor intensity versus CON samples (10.56 vs. 7.57). While chemical flavor intensities were statistically higher for LA samples than aPAA and CON samples, the quantitative measure represented a low-level intensity for all samples. Interestingly, browned flavor ratings were the greatest for ground beef samples treated hot with aPAA. There were no differences in the intensity of beef flavor ID, roasted, metallic, fat‐like, sour, rancid, warmed over, or liver‐like among the hot intervention treatments. Findings of this study suggest that chemical interventions applied to a hot, un‐chilled surface have the greatest influence on beef flavor performance, while chemical interventions applied to a chilled product have little to no effect on flavor performance. Additionally, chemical interventions did not influence the fatty acid profile of beef samples.

Implications

With multiple interventions being utilized, it is inevitable that beef primals and trimmings will be exposed to chemical interventions. This study shows hot interventions had a greater impact on flavor, while cold interventions did not noticeably impact flavor attributes. Additionally, treatments had a greater influence on leaner samples, which resulted in higher off‐flavor notes. The beef industry will benefit from greater knowledge regarding the implications that this standard production practice has on the end product’s flavor profile.