Available via license: CC BY 4.0
Content may be subject to copyright.
© American Meat Science Association. www.meatandmusclebiology.com
This is an open access article distributed under the CC BY-NC-ND license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/)
Meat and Muscle Biology™
Introduction
The demand for beef brisket has increased due to
its rising popularity among Texas Barbecue enthusiasts
(Franklin and Mackay, 2015, Goldwyn and Blonder,
2016, Walsh, 2016). Beyond barbecue, this beef com-
modity is becoming more mainstream in restaurants
where chefs are rening the use of brisket for specialty
ground beef items. Along with these uses, quick service
restaurants and retailers, such as Arby’s and H-E-B,
have empowered the rise in brisket consumption by
oering specialty sandwiches and products that go be-
yond the traditional hamburger. Therefore, it is impor-
tant for the beef industry to explore options for adding
value to brisket by better understanding and/or enhanc-
ing its avor, juiciness, and tenderness; all important
aspects for pit masters, chefs, retailers, and consumers.
A Canadian study evaluated the palatability charac-
teristics of 33 beef muscles and found that the overall
tenderness ratings for point (Mm. pectorales super-
ciales: M. pectoralis transversus and M. pectoralis
descendens or more simply known as the supercial
pectoral) and at (M. pectoralis profundus or deep pec-
toral) portions that make up the brisket, were ranked
by a trained sensory panel as 2 of the least tender of
the muscles studied (Jeremiah et al., 2003). In addi-
Assessment of Postmortem Aging Effects on
Texas-style Barbecue Beef Briskets
McKensie K. Harris, Ray R. Riley, Ashley N. Arnold, Rhonda K. Miller,
Davey B. Grifn, Kerri B. Gehring, and Jeffrey W. Savell*
Department of Animal Science, Texas A&M University, Texas A&M AgriLife Research, College Station, TX 77843, USA
*Corresponding author. Email: j-savell@tamu.edu (J. Savell)
Abstract: Palatability traits (tenderness, juiciness, avor, and overall liking) of beef briskets (n = 48) were evaluated for 3 dif-
ferent postmortem aging period comparisons: 7 d vs. 21 d (Set 1), 21 d vs. 35 d (Set 2), and 7 d vs. 35 d (Set 3). Briskets were
prepared as Texas-style barbecue by seasoning with salt and pepper and smoking with oak wood over a long period (approx.
11 h) using a commercial oven designed for such purposes until deemed tender (approx. 85°C internal temperature). Within
each treatment set, Warner-Bratzler shear (WBS) force measurements did not dier (P > 0.05) between aging days; however,
WBS force measurements for point (Mm. pectorales superciales composed of the M. pectoralis transversus and M. pectoralis
descendens) were lower (P < 0.05) compared to the at portions (M. pectorals profundus) within each aging set. Consumer
panelists did not (P > 0.05) detect dierences between aging days within each set for overall liking, avor liking, tenderness
liking, and juiciness liking. Conversely, dierences were found between brisket point and at portions; Set 1 diered for avor
liking (at > point; P = 0.0348) and juiciness liking (point > at; P = 0.0004), Set 2 diered for overall liking (at > point; P =
0.0499) and juiciness liking (point > at; P < 0.0001), and Set 3 diered for overall liking (at > point; P = 0.0296) and juiciness
liking (point > at; P = 0.0112). Our ndings indicate postmortem aging did not improve beef brisket palatability, but we did
note dierences between point and at portions. Preparing beef briskets as Texas-style barbecue resulted in products with low
WBS values and high consumer palatability ratings, which helps demonstrate why barbecued briskets are so popular.
Keywords: aging, beef, brisket, consumer panels, warner-bratzler shear force
Meat and Muscle Biology 1:46–52 (2017) doi:10.22175/mmb2017.01.0003
Submitted 9 Jan. 2017 Accepted 30 Mar. 2017
Funded, in part, by the Beef Checkoff. Special thanks go to
Southside Market and Barbeque of Elgin, Texas for graciously
providing cooking facilities and expertise for this project.
Published online June 15, 2017
47
Meat and Muscle Biology 2017, 1:46–52 Harris et al. Postmortem Aging Effects on Beef Briskets
American Meat Science Association. www.meatandmusclebiology.com
tion, there have been multiple studies that have evalu-
ated tenderness of beef brisket by Warner-Bratzler Shear
(WBS) force (Belew et al., 2003, Johnson et al., 1988,
Ramsbottom et al., 1945). In one of the earliest studies
characterizing muscles in the beef carcass, Ramsbottom
et al. (1945) ranked muscles from most to least tender,
with the deep and supercial pectoral muscles falling
in the bottom 25% for shear force and organoleptic rat-
ings. This same study identied the deep pectoral as be-
ing more tender than the supercial pectoral, whereas
Johnson et al. (1988) found the supercial pectoral to be
more tender than the deep pectoral. A more recent study
conducted by Belew et al. (2003) utilized the tenderness
threshold identied by Shackelford et al. (1991) to clas-
sify various muscles as “very tough,” “tough,” “interme-
diate,” “tender,” and “very tender” based on WBS force
measurements. The supercial pectoral was classied as
“tender,” whereas the deep pectoral was categorized as
“tough” (Belew et al., 2003). Previous studies examining
the muscles comprising the brisket have reported con-
icting results, showing great variability in WBS force
values and tenderness rankings.
Not only has historical research classied muscles
based on palatability attributes, but it has also identied
useful ways in improving the eating experience of beef.
Research has shown that tenderness is 1 of the 3 most im-
portant factors in beef eating quality (Legako et al., 2016),
and can be improved through postmortem aging (Calkins
and Seideman, 1988, Doty and Pierce, 1961, Eilers et
al., 1996, Smith et al., 1978). Although most researchers
have conducted studies on tenderness for “middle meats”
and muscles from the round, there has been limited work
evaluating the postmortem aging eect on other muscle
groups such as those comprising the brisket. Smith et al.
(1978) found the deep and supercial pectoral muscles
to achieve maximum postmortem tenderization after 5 d
and 28 d, respectively. Thus, there is a possibility of elic-
iting changes in palatability characteristics that would
add value to the previously considered “tough” brisket.
Cookery method is one of multiple factors that
can impact the tenderness of beef. Smith et al. (1978)
prepared beef samples by roasting to an internal tem-
perature of 75°C in an electric oven. Belew et al.
(2003) cooked brisket steaks to 70°C on a at-top grill.
Thus, data from previous studies should be evaluated
with cooking dierence in mind. Palatability of tra-
ditional Texas-style smoked briskets that are cooked
at low temperatures (93.3°C to 121.1°C) for extend-
ed lengths of time (8 to 12 h) (Franklin and Mackay,
2015, Goldwyn and Blonder, 2016, Walsh, 2016) has
not been evaluated. The current study was designed
to evaluate the eect of postmortem aging periods on
Texas-style smoked briskets. Determination of post-
mortem aging eects on the palatability of briskets
could provide the opportunity to add value and pro-
mote more eective merchandising of beef briskets.
Materials and Methods
Consumer panel procedures were approved by the
Texas A&M Institutional Review Board (IRB2015–
0498M).
Product collection
Twenty-four A-maturity, yield grade 1 to 4 beef car-
casses with small, modest, or moderate marbling (USDA,
2016a) and carcass weights ranging from 320.0 kg to
438.4 kg were selected 48 h postmortem at a commer-
cial harvest and processing facility for use in this study.
Carcasses were selected by trained individuals who esti-
mated the amount of intramuscular fat (marbling) at the
12th and 13th rib interface along with lean color and skel-
etal ossication (USDA, 2016a). Paired, untrimmed beef
briskets, deckle-on, boneless (IMPS 119), as described
by USDA (2010), were removed from each of the select-
ed carcasses. Briskets (n = 48) then were vacuum pack-
aged, boxed, stored under refrigerated conditions, and
transported to the Texas A&M Rosenthal Meat Science
and Technology Center (College Station, TX).
Treatment assignment and storage
Upon receipt, each pair of briskets was assigned to 1
of 3 aging period comparison sets: 7 versus 21 d (Set 1);
21 versus 35 d (Set 2); and 7 versus 35 d (Set 3). Briskets
from 1 carcass side were assigned to a consistent age day
treatment within each set. The pack date was identied
as Day 0 for all aging periods. Briskets were aged under
refrigerated conditions (2°C to 4°C) for each designated
treatment length. After each aging period, briskets were
frozen (–40°C) and stored (–10°C) for a minimum of 5 d.
Raw product preparation
Briskets were thawed (2°C to 4°C) for 5 to 6 d. Thawed
briskets were unpackaged, deckle fat was removed, and
sternum and external fat were trimmed to 0.64 cm to cre-
ate a deckle-o, boneless brisket (IMPS 120) as described
by USDA (2010). Trimmed briskets were weighed (Table
1), and a seasoning mix consisting of 89 g Morton’s Kosher
Salt (Grand Saline, TX) and 42 g 16-mesh coarse ground
black pepper (REO Spice and Seasoning, Huntsville, TX)
Meat and Muscle Biology 2017, 1:46–52 Harris et al. Postmortem Aging Effects on Beef Briskets
48
American Meat Science Association. www.meatandmusclebiology.com
was applied to all surfaces of each brisket. Briskets were
held in insulated containers, transported (~132 km) to
Southside Market and Barbeque (Elgin, TX), and cooked
using typical commercial methods.
Cooking
After initial internal raw brisket temperatures were
recorded, briskets were spaced evenly on one of six
racks in an Oyler Barbecue Pit (J&R Manufacturing,
Inc., Mesquite, TX) and smoked using oak wood at a
pit temperature of 98.8°C for approximately 11 h. As
brisket internal temperatures approached the doneness
threshold (approx. 85°C internal temperature), an ex-
perienced pit master assessed each brisket manually
for pliability as an indicator that the desired level of
tenderness had been achieved. Final internal tempera-
tures were recorded before nished briskets were re-
moved from the pit, weighed, wrapped in peach treat-
ed butcher paper (Norpak, Newark, NJ) and stored in
an insulated container for transport to the Texas A&M
University sensory facilities (College Station). Brisket
weights and cooking data are reported in Table 1.
Sensory evaluation
Cooked briskets were held in the insulated contain-
ers for approximately 2 h, which included transporta-
tion and staging before the sensory panels. Ten minutes
before serving, briskets were taken out of the insulated
containers and the peach paper wrapping was removed.
A knife was used to separate the point from at portion
at the most posterior edge of the hard sternum fat. Each
portion was rewrapped in a new sheet of peach paper
and held in an oven (Alto-Shaam, Milwaukee, WI) set
at 93.3°C until subsequent slicing and serving.
Slicing varied for each portion. The point portion
was divided in half with a knife cut starting at the apex
of the brisket (cranial end) and continuing to the cut
face (perpendicular to the point/at separation). The
half furthest from the hard sternum fat (craniodorsal
half) was used to remove a 2.54 cm thick slice (from
the cut surface) for WBS force, followed by six sub-
sequent center cut slices, each 1.27 cm thick and 12.7
cm wide. Slices from the at portion were removed
according to the following: the rst slice (2.54 cm
thick), destined for WBS force, was removed at the in-
terface of point/at separation; 6 subsequent center cut
slices 1.27 cm thick and 12.7 cm wide (accomplished
by removing 2 equidistant ends to make a center cut
slice) were separated. Prepared slices from each por-
tion destined for consumer evaluation were placed on
individually labeled, clear serving plates and served
to consumer panelists. A plastic knife and fork were
provided with each sample to assist in sample tasting.
The panel was conducted at the Kleberg Animal
and Food Sciences Center at Texas A&M University
(College Station). Panelists (n = 83) were recruited
from the Bryan/College Station area via electronic
survey. Compensation in the amount of $25 USD
was awarded to all panelists who completed the study.
Before beginning each session, panelists were given
verbal instructions and asked to complete a consent
form, demographics survey (Table 2), and a meat con-
sumption questionnaire (Table 3). Panelists then were
seated in individual testing booths equipped with red
theater gel lights. Samples were served warm, in a ran-
dom order, and identied with random 3-digit codes.
Nabisco Unsalted Tops Premium Saltine Crackers
(Kraft Foods Global, Inc., East Hanover, NJ) and dou-
ble distilled, deionized water were provided to panel-
ists to cleanse their palate between samples. Panelists
were asked to evaluate brisket slice attributes based on
a 9-point scale. Attributes included: overall liking (1 =
dislike extremely; 9 = like extremely), avor liking (1 =
dislike extremely; 9 = like extremely), juiciness liking
(1 = dislike extremely; 9 = like extremely), and tender-
ness liking (1 = dislike extremely; 9 = like extremely).
Warner Bratzler shear force
Single slices taken from the point and at portions
of each cooked brisket were placed in a single layer
on a plastic tray, covered with plastic wrap and stored
(2°C to 4°C) for 12 h. Slices were equilibrated to room
temperature before being trimmed of bark (exterior
crust formed during cooking), visible fat, and heavy
connective tissue to expose muscle ber orientation.
Six cores, 1.27 cm in diameter, were removed parallel
to the muscle ber for testing. Each core was sheared
once perpendicular to the muscle ber on a United
Testing machine (United SSTM-500, Huntington
Table 1. Means and standard deviations for weights,
cook yield, temperatures, and cook duration of briskets
Parameter n1Mean SD
Raw weight (kg) 48 5.60 0.75
Cooked weight (kg) 48 3.51 0.51
Cook yield (%) 48 62.60 2.01
Initial raw temperature (°C) 48 3.03 0.73
Final cooked temperature (°C) 48 85.42 2.28
Cook duration (h) 39 11.00 0.58
1Number of briskets evaluated.
49
Meat and Muscle Biology 2017, 1:46–52 Harris et al. Postmortem Aging Effects on Beef Briskets
American Meat Science Association. www.meatandmusclebiology.com
Beach, CA) at a cross-head speed of 200 mm/min us-
ing a 10.0 kg load cell and a 1.02-cm-thick V-shape
blade with a 60° angle and a half-round peak. The
peak force needed to shear each core was recorded,
and the average of the six cores was used for analysis.
Statistical analysis
Data were analyzed using the PROC GLM func-
tion of SAS (v9.3; SAS Inst. Inc., Cary, NC) with ɑ
< 0.05. Data were analyzed so that only aging treat-
ments within carcass were evaluated and carcass was
included as a xed eect. Therefore, 3 analyses were
conducted that compared 7 d versus 21 d aging, 21 d
versus 35 d aging, and 7 d versus 35 d aging. Main ef-
fects included in the model were aging time, portion
(at versus point) and their interaction. Least squares
means were calculated and were separated using the
PDIFF option (P < 0.05) where appropriate.
Results and Discussion
Warner-Bratzler shear force
There were no interactions (P > 0.05) between ag-
ing treatment and portion for WBS values (data not
reported in tabular form). Least squares means for
WBS force values for Set 1, 2, and 3 main eects are
Table 2. Demographic summary of consumer
panelists (n = 83)
Demographic n1%
Sex
Male 40 48
Female 43 52
Age
20 yr or younger 5 6
21 to 25 yr 23 28
26 to 35 yr 18 22
36 to 45 yr 7 8
46 to 55 yr 11 13
56 to 65 yr 9 11
66 yr and older 10 12
Working status
Not employed 11 12
Part-time 12 13
Full-time 33 37
Student 33 37
Annual household income
Below $25,000 17 20
$25,001 to 49,999 14 17
$50,000 to 74,999 17 20
$75,000 to 99,999 13 16
$100,000 or more 22 27
Ethic background
White 71 86
Hispanic 10 12
Asian or Pacic Islander 1 1
Black 1 1
American Indian 0 0
Other 0 0
1Number of responses.
Table 3. Meat consumption prole of consumer
panelists (n = 83)
Meat consumption pattern n1%
Meat consumption
Yes 82 99
No 1 1
Type of meat consumption
Beef 83 100
Pork 82 99
Chicken 83 100
Fish 77 93
Frequency of beef consumption
Daily 7 8
5 or more times per wk 18 22
3 or more times per wk 40 48
Once per wk 16 19
Once every 2 wk 1 1
Less than once every 2 wk 1 1
Frequency of beef consumption
At home
None 2 3
Once weekly 20 25
Twice weekly 26 33
3 times weekly 18 23
4 times weekly 7 9
5 or more times weekly 7 9
At a restaurant
None 3 4
Once weekly 40 49
Twice weekly 20 25
3 times weekly 7 9
4 times weekly 7 9
5 or more times weekly 4 5
Preferred degree of doneness
Rare 3 4
Medium rare 21 25
Medium 6 7
Medium well 38 45
Well done 17 20
Type of beef purchased
Grass-fed 11 12
Traditional 71 75
Aged 6 6
Organic 7 7
1Number of responses.
Meat and Muscle Biology 2017, 1:46–52 Harris et al. Postmortem Aging Effects on Beef Briskets
50
American Meat Science Association. www.meatandmusclebiology.com
reported in Table 4. Though briskets aged for a greater
number of days were not more tender (P > 0.05) than
those aged for fewer days, all WBS force values fell
well within the “very tender” threshold (< 31.38 N) as
dened by Belew et al. (2003).
For all treatment comparison sets, point portions
had lower (P < 0.05) WBS force values than at por-
tions, regardless of length of age (Table 4). This is
consistent with the ndings of Belew et al. (2003) and
Johnson et al. (1988). In contrast, Ramsbottom et al.
(1945) reported the at as having lower shear force
values than the point. This inconsistency could be at-
tributed to the varying cook methods and postmortem
aging durations among these studies. Ramsbottom et al.
(1945) cooked the brisket portions in lard to an inter-
nal temperature of 76.7°C, and Johnson et al. (1988)
cooked briskets to 70°C in a water bath. In contrast, we
used a commercial pit barbecue smoker to cook product
to approximately 85°C. Additionally, the briskets eval-
uated by Ramsbottom et al. (1945) and Johnson et al.
(1988) were aged 5 d and 21 d, respectively, compared
to the 7 d, 21 d, and 35 d aging periods we used. These
factors created dierences among the studies that are
important to consider when comparing results.
Consumer sensory evaluations
There were no (P > 0.05) interactions between ag-
ing treatment and portion for the consumer sensory
traits for any of the 3 sets (data not presented in tabu-
lar form). Least squares means for rankings in over-
all liking, avor liking, tenderness liking, and juici-
ness liking for Set 1, 2, and 3 are reported in Table 5.
Consumer ratings did not dier (P > 0.05) between ag-
ing treatments within each comparison set. However,
consumers did detect dierences (P < 0.05) between
point and at portions within each comparison.
Overall liking ratings were greater for the at com-
pared to the point sections in Set 2 (P = 0.0499) and
Set 3 (P = 0.0296). Flavor liking ratings for at por-
tions within Set 1 were higher (P = 0.0348) than point
portions, although there were no (P > 0.05) avor at-
tribute dierences found for the 2 portions in sets 2
and 3. Jeremiah et al. (2003) found the point and at
portion avor intensity and desirability ratings to reside
between 4 and 6 on a 9-point hedonic scale, and the
at portion had higher scores than the point. The val-
ues in the past study were still lower and less desirable
than the values found in our study. In addition, there are
multiple inuences on avor in beef, one in particular
being lipid type, amount, and composition (Wood et al.,
2004). With regards to lipid type and amount, Mason et
al. (2009) dissected point and at portions of the brisket
to determine the percentages of external fat, seam fat,
and extractable fat, nding the at portion had a higher
percent fat and lower percent lean when compared to
the point. In addition, the USDA’s National Nutrient
Database for Standard Reference (USDA, 2016b) gives
information on total lipid within each portion; on a raw
basis, the at portion has a higher fat content (22.18
g/100 g vs. 20.98 g/100 g) than the point. However, this
is reversed on a cooked basis. Both resources show that
there is variability in the fat content of the point and
at portions of beef brisket. Further studies should be
conducted on the lipid composition of the point and at
portions and how this pertains to consumer preferences
Table 4. Least squares means and SE for WBS force
values obtained from each set comparison for aging
treatment and brisket portion
Aging treatment and
brisket portion comparison
n1
WBS force (N)
Set 1
Age
7 d 16 19.27
21 d 16 18.14
SEM 1.01
P-value 0.4396
Portion
Flat 16 23.20
Point 16 14.21
SEM 1.01
P-value < 0.0001
Set 2
Age
21 d 16 16.92
35 d 16 17.60
SEM 1.06
P-value 0.6543
Portion
Flat 16 22.05
Point 16 12.47
SEM 1.06
P-value < 0.0001
Set 3
Age
7 d 16 17.99
35 d 16 17.16
SEM 0.93
P-value 0.5297
Portion
Flat 16 22.95
Point 16 12.20
SEM 0.93
P-value < 0.0001
1Number of observations evaluated.
51
Meat and Muscle Biology 2017, 1:46–52 Harris et al. Postmortem Aging Effects on Beef Briskets
American Meat Science Association. www.meatandmusclebiology.com
of each; this may help clarify the dierences found in
our study for avor like/dislike.
Surprisingly, there were no (P > 0.05) tenderness
liking dierences detected among the point and at
portions in any of the set comparisons, even though
there were WBS value dierences between the por-
tions. Because the WBS force values fell below the
“very tender” threshold dened by Belew et al. (2003),
it may be that consumers were unable to detect slight
dierences in tenderness ratings between samples. In
comparison, Jeremiah et al. (2003), using a trained
sensory panel and a nine-point scale, found the ten-
derness rankings for both portions of the brisket to be
slightly lower (~5.5 to 6.0) than what we found.
Finally, it is interesting to note consumers pre-
ferred (P < 0.05) the juiciness of point portions as
compared to at portions in all three comparison sets,
paralleling what was found by Jeremiah et al. (2003).
Interestingly, the preference in point portion juiciness
seen in Set 2 and Set 3 did not drive overall like or
dislike preferences, as ats obtained higher rankings
in this category. This nding may indicate that con-
sumers preferred samples from the leaner at portion,
even though they gave higher ratings for specic traits
to samples from the point portion.
Although there were similarities between results
from our study and those from Jeremiah et al. (2003),
the dierences seen are most likely attributable to the
dierence in sample preparation. Jeremiah et al. (2003)
roasted 6 d aged 1 kg roasts in an electric convection
oven to 72°C; a method very dierent than smoking to
higher temperatures (approx. 85°C) for longer times
(~11 h). It may be that cooking technique has a large ef-
fect on palatability for muscles such as those that make
up the brisket. Furthermore, dierences in sensory pan-
el type could contribute to the diering results; a trained
consumer panel was utilized by Jeremiah et al. (2003),
whereas a consumer panel was used in our study.
Conclusions
Signicant aging treatment dierences were not
found for the objective (WBS force) and subjective (con-
sumer sensory panel) techniques used to assess palatabil-
ity attributes. Therefore, if smoked briskets are prepared
using a Texas-style barbecue method, cooking at low
temperatures for long durations of time, no added palat-
ability benets would be achieved through using prod-
uct with extended postmortem aging periods. However,
based on WBS force and consumer dierences detected
between point and at portions, pit masters and barbecue
enthusiasts may nd value in buying individual muscle
pieces or marketing the 2 portions individually.
In addition, despite previous studies that ranked
the brisket point and at portion as being tough cuts/
muscles, this study revealed there is an advantage to
preparing briskets Texas-style, as the WBS force values
fell well below the thresholds determined as “very ten-
der” by previous studies, and palatability ratings were
relatively high on average (6 and 7 on 9-point scale).
Table 5. Least squares means and SEM for consumer
sensory rankings of beef palatability attributes for Sets
11, 21, and 31 stratied by aging treatment and brisket
portion main eects
Aging treatment
and brisket por-
tion comparison
n2
Overall
like/dislike3
Flavor
like/dislike3
Tenderness
like/dislike3
Juiciness
like/dislike3
Set 1
Age
7 d 16 6.3 6.6 6.2 6.0
21 d 16 6.9 6.9 6.8 6.5
SEM 0.21 0.18 0.28 0.23
P-value 0.0818 0.1728 0.1456 0.1393
Portion
Flat 16 6.8 7.0a 6.2 5.6b
Point 16 6.4 6.5b 6.9 6.9a
SEM 0.21 0.18 0.28 0.23
P-value 0.1807 0.0348 0.0864 0.0004
Set 2
Age
21 d 16 6.4 6.9 6.7 6.6
35 d 16 6.9 7.3 7.0 6.6
SEM 0.24 0.19 0.26 0.19
P-value 0.1381 0.1073 0.5269 0.8533
Portion
Flat 16 7.0a 7.4 6.7 5.8b
Point 16 6.3b 6.8 7.1 7.3a
SEM 0.24 0.19 0.26 0.19
P-value 0.0499 0.0602 0.2571 < .0001
Set 3
Age
7 d 16 6.8 7.1 6.8 6.6
35 d 16 6.4 6.8 6.7 6.4
SEM 0.22 0.22 0.24 0.22
P-value 0.1719 0.3031 0.6498 0.4669
Portion
Flat 16 7.0a 7.2 6.5 6.1b
Point 16 6.2b 6.7 6.9 6.9a
SEM 0.22 0.22 0.24 0.22
P-value 0.0296 0.1028 0.2285 0.0112
1Set 1: 7 d versus 21 d aging; Set 2: 21 d versus 35 d aging; Set 3: 7 d
versus 35 d aging.
2Number of observations evaluated.
3Rankings were assigned based on a nine-point hedonic scale for each
attribute (1 = dislike extremely and 9 = like extremely).
Meat and Muscle Biology 2017, 1:46–52 Harris et al. Postmortem Aging Effects on Beef Briskets
52
American Meat Science Association. www.meatandmusclebiology.com
Literature Cited
Belew, J. B., J. C. Brooks, D. R. McKenna, and J. W. Savell. 2003.
Warner-Bratzler shear evaluations of 40 bovine muscles. Meat
Sci. 64:507–512. doi:10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00242-5
Calkins, C. R., and S. C. Seideman. 1988. Relationships among cal-
cium-dependent protease, cathepsins B and H, meat tenderness
and the response of muscle to aging. J. Anim. Sci. 66:1186–
1193. doi:10.2527/jas1988.6651186x
Doty, D. M., and J. C. Pierce. 1961. Beef muscle characteristics as
related to carcass grade, carcass weight, and degree of aging.
Technical Bulletin No. 1231. Agricultural Marketing Service,
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.
Eilers, J. D., J. D. Tatum, J. B. Morgan, and G. C. Smith. 1996.
Modication of early-postmortem muscle pH and use of
postmortem aging to improve beef tenderness. J. Anim. Sci.
74:790–798. doi:10.2527/1996.744790x
Franklin, A., and J. Mackay. 2015. Franklin Barbecue: A meat-
smoking manifesto. Ten Speed Press, Berkeley, California.
Goldwyn, M., and G. Blonder. 2016. Meathead: The science of
great barbecue and grilling. A Rux Martin Book, Houghton
Miin Harcourt, Boston.
Jeremiah, L. E., L. L. Gibson, J. L. Aalhus, and M. E. R. Dugan. 2003.
Assessment of palatability attributes of the major beef muscles.
Meat Sci. 65:949–958. doi:10.1016/S0309-1740(02)00307-8
Johnson, R. C., C. M. Chen, T. S. Muller, W. J. Costello, J. R.
Romans, and K. W. Jones. 1988. Characterization of the mus-
cles within the beef forequarter. J. Food Sci. 53:1247–1250,
1257. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.1988.tb09249.x
Legako, J. F., T. T. Dinh, M. F. Miller, K. Adhikari, and J. C.
Brooks. 2016. Consumer palatability scores, sensory descrip-
tive attributes, and volatile compounds of grilled beef steaks
from three USDA Quality Grades. Meat Sci. 112:77–85.
doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2015.10.018
Mason, C. L., K. L. Nicholson, J. C. Brooks, R. J. Delmore, W.
R. Henning, D. D. Johnson, C. L. Lorenzen, R. J. Maddock,
R. K. Miller, J. B. Morgan, B. E. Wasser, B. L. Gwartney, K.
B. Harris, D. B. Grin, D. S. Hale, and J. W. Savell. 2009.
National Beef Market Basket Survey— 2006: External fat
thickness measurements and separable component deter-
minations for beef from US retail establishments. Meat Sci.
81:335–343. doi:10.1016/j.meatsci.2008.08.010
Ramsbottom, J. M., E. J. Standine, and C. H. Koonz. 1945.
Comparative tenderness of representative beef muscles. J. Food
Sci. 10:497–508. doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.1945.tb16198.x
Shackelford, S. D., J. B. Morgan, H. R. Cross, and J. W. Savell.
1991. Identication of threshold levels for Warner-Bratzler
shear force in beef top loin steaks. J. Muscle Foods 2:289–296.
doi:10.1111/j.1745-4573.1991.tb00461.x
Smith, G. C., G. R. Culp, and Z. L. Carpenter. 1978. Postmortem
aging of beef carcasses. J. Food Sci. 43:823–826.
doi:10.1111/j.1365-2621.1978.tb02430.x
USDA. 2010. Institutional meat purchase specications: Fresh
beef– Series 100. United States Department of Agriculture,
Agricultural Marketing Service, Washington, DC. https://www.
ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/IMPS_100_Fresh_
Beef%5B1%5D.pdf. Accessed 12 October 2016.
USDA. 2016a. United States standards for grades of carcass beef.
Agricultural Marketing Service, United States Department
of Agriculture, Washington, DC. https://www.ams.usda.
gov/sites/default/les/media/Carcass Beef Standard.pdf.
Accessed 10 October 2016.
USDA. 2016b. USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard
Reference, Release 28. Version Current: September 2015,
slightly revised May 2016. United States Department of
Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Nutrient Data
Laboratory, Washington, DC. https://www.ars.usda.gov/north-
east-area/beltsville-md/beltsville-human-nutrition-research-
center/nutrient-data-laboratory/docs/usda-national-nutrient-
database-for-standard-reference/. Accessed 26 December 2016.
Walsh, R. 2016. Legends of Texas Barbecue cookbook: Recipes
and recollections from the pitmasters. Chronicle Books LLC,
San Francisco, CA.
Wood, J. D., R. I. Richardson, G. R. Nute, A. V. Fisher, M. M.
Campo, E. Kasapidou, P. R. Sheard, and M. Enser. 2004.
Eects of fatty acids on meat quality: A review. Meat Sci.
66:21–32. doi:10.1016/S0309-1740(03)00022-6
