4.7 Article

Scandinavian consumer preference for beef steaks packed with or without oxygen

Journal

MEAT SCIENCE
Volume 85, Issue 3, Pages 519-524

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.meatsci.2010.02.026

Keywords

Beef; Packing; Consumer; High oxygen; Skin packing; MAP

Funding

  1. Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Fisheries, Denmark

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Beef steaks retail-packed with (80% O-2, 20% CO2) or without oxygen (either skin-packed or gas-packed (69.6% N-2, 30% CO2, 0.04% CO or 70% N-2, 30% CO2)) were compared by consumers in Denmark (n = 382), Norway (n = 316) and Sweden (n = 374). Two pairs of two steaks - one steak packed in a high oxygen atmosphere and one packed without oxygen - were given to the consumers. They were instructed to prepare the steaks at home on two consecutive days, and two persons had to taste each steak. In Denmark, the oxygen-free packing was either gas packing with CO (69.6% N-2, 30% CO2, 0.04% CO) or without CO (70% N-2, 30% CO2), in Norway it was either gas packing with CO (69.6% N-2, 30% CO2, 0.04% CO) or skin packing, and in Sweden it was either skin packing or gas packing without CO (70% N-2, 30% CO2). The meat represented animals that were between 17 and 80 months old (Denmark) and young bulls (Norway and Sweden). Consumers in all three countries clearly preferred steaks packed without oxygen, in terms of overall liking, willingness to pay and their preferred choice of one steak. Furthermore, they preferred the oxygen-free steaks in terms of both overall liking and liking of tenderness, juiciness and flavour. In Sweden, many consumers would pay more than usual for the skin-packed steak, and it was more often chosen as the preferred steak out of the four compared with gas-packed without oxygen. No difference was seen between the two oxygen-free packing methods in Denmark and Norway. (c) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available