Hubbry Logo
Meat tendernessMeat tendernessMain
Open search
Meat tenderness
Community hub
Meat tenderness
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Meat tenderness
Meat tenderness
Meat tenderness
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Tenderness is a quality of meat gauging how easily it is chewed or cut. Tenderness is a desirable quality, as tender meat is softer, easier to chew, and generally more palatable than harder meat. Consequently, tender cuts of meat typically command higher prices. The tenderness depends on a number of factors including the meat grain, the amount of connective tissue, and the amount of fat.[1] Tenderness can be increased by a number of processing techniques, generally referred to as tenderizing or tenderization.

Influencing factors

[edit]

Tenderness is perhaps the most important of all factors impacting meat eating quality, with others being flavor, juiciness, and succulence.[2]

Tenderness is a quality complex to obtain and gauge, and it depends on a number of factors. On the basic level, these factors are meat grain, the amount and composition of connective tissue, and the amount of fat.[1] In order to obtain a tender meat, there is a complex interplay between the animal's pasture, age, species, breed, protein intake, calcium status, stress before and at killing, and how the meat is treated after slaughter.[3]

Meat with the fat content deposited within the steak to create a marbled appearance has always been regarded as more tender than steaks where the fat is in a separate layer.[3] Cooking causes melting of the fat, spreading it throughout the meat and increasing the tenderness of the final product.[1]

Testing

[edit]

The meat industry strives to produce meat with standardized and guaranteed tenderness, since these characteristics are sought for by the consumers.[4] For that purpose a number of objective tests of tenderness have been developed, gauging meat resistance to shear force, most commonly used being Slice Shear Force test[5] and Warner–Bratzler Shear Force test.[6]

Tenderizing

[edit]

Techniques for breaking down collagens in meat to make it more palatable and tender are referred to as tenderizing or tenderization.

There are a number of ways to tenderize meat:

Research

[edit]

Efforts have been made since at least 1970 to use explosives to tenderize meat and a company was founded to try to commercialize the process; as of 2011 it was not yet scalable.[13]


References

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Meat tenderness

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Meat tenderness refers to the ease with which cooked can be chewed and fragmented in the , serving as a primary sensory attribute that determines and consumer acceptability in meat products. This property arises from the structural breakdown of muscle tissue postmortem, influenced by the interplay of solubility, myofibrillar protein integrity, and enzymatic , ultimately affecting texture and . Tenderness is quantified through objective measures like Warner-Bratzler shear force (WBSF), where lower values indicate greater tenderness, and sensory evaluations by trained panels. The development of tenderness is a complex postmortem process that begins immediately after slaughter, involving initial toughening during followed by progressive tenderization over time. Key mechanisms include the degradation of structural proteins such as desmin, , and troponin-T by endogenous proteases like the calpain system, which disrupts the myofibrillar architecture and reduces shear resistance. , primarily composed of , contributes to when abundant or cross-linked, but its solubility increases with animal age, cooking temperature, and aging duration, enhancing overall tenderness. Muscle fiber characteristics, including sarcomere length and type (e.g., longer sarcomeres in tender cuts like the psoas major), further modulate this process, with shorter lengths leading to contraction and increased . Several intrinsic and extrinsic factors regulate tenderness, with significant variation observed across , breeds, and production systems. Animal-related influences include age at slaughter (older animals yield tougher due to higher content), breed (e.g., indicus produce tougher cuts than taurus), and pre-slaughter stress, which accelerates and pH decline, potentially limiting activity. Postmortem interventions, such as controlled aging (recommended 14 days for to optimize ), electrical stimulation to hasten rigor, and technologies like high-pressure processing, can enhance tenderness by 20-60% (as % reduction in WBSF) through accelerated . Cooking methods also play a role, as denaturation above 60°C improves , though overcooking can cause and toughening via oxidation. Tenderness holds substantial economic importance in the , as inconsistency leads to consumer dissatisfaction in approximately 15% of purchases and influences in grading systems like USDA standards, where marbling weakly correlates with tenderness (R² ≈ 0.06-0.07). As of the early , research focused on prediction tools, such as early postmortem measurements (85% accuracy) and biomarkers like calpastatin activity, to mitigate variability and support genetic selection for tender traits. More recent advancements as of 2024 include genomic selection and models for improved prediction (>90% accuracy) and enzymatic technologies to standardize outcomes, ensuring tenderness aligns with consumer expectations for high-value products (see Current Research and Developments section for details).

Definition and Importance

Definition

Meat tenderness refers to the ease with which meat can be chewed and broken down during mastication, primarily determined by the resistance of muscle fibers and connective tissues to shear forces applied by the teeth. This textural attribute is perceived sensorially as the softness or firmness of the meat, influencing the overall eating experience through the minimal effort required for fragmentation and swallowing. In structural terms, tenderness arises from the interplay of key components within the muscle tissue, where lower resistance correlates with higher palatability. The primary structural elements governing meat tenderness include myofibrillar proteins, connective tissues, and . Myofibrillar proteins, such as and , form the contractile units of muscle fibers and contribute to the initial through their dense, cross-linked structure; their partial degradation softens the tissue. Connective tissues, composed mainly of and , provide structural support around muscle bundles and can impart if abundant or highly cross-linked, as resists shearing more than muscle fibers alone. , often visible as marbling, lubricates the tissue during , reducing perceived and enhancing the breakdown process without directly altering protein structures. Unlike juiciness, which involves the release of and fluids during mastication, or flavor, which pertains to taste and aroma compounds, meat tenderness focuses exclusively on the mechanical textural breakdown of solid components. Post-mortem changes, such as enzymatic , can alter these structural attributes over time, but tenderness remains distinct as a measure of physical resistance rather than sensory or chemical perception.

Significance in Meat Quality

Tenderness serves as the primary determinant of meat , consistently ranked highest in surveys for overall eating satisfaction. In the United States, national beef tenderness surveys, such as the 2022 assessment, highlight tenderness as a leading factor in liking, with most retail steaks rated as "very tender" (Warner-Bratzler <31.4 N) and numerical improvements in average ratings over decades yet ongoing variability leading to inconsistent experiences. This attribute directly influences perceptions of juiciness and flavor, making it central to the sensory appeal that drives acceptance of meat products. Economically, tenderness significantly impacts the meat industry by commanding premium pricing for guaranteed tender cuts. In a 2001 study, consumers were willing to pay an additional $1.23 to $1.84 per pound for tender versus tough steaks, enhancing profitability for producers and processors. Conversely, tough meat contributes to consumer dissatisfaction, reduced repeat purchases, and potential waste through rejection or incomplete consumption, undermining market demand. Historically, tenderness has been recognized in meat grading systems, such as the USDA quality grades established in the early 20th century, which evaluate marbling as a key indicator of expected tenderness, juiciness, and flavor. Grades like Prime, based on abundant marbling, reflect this emphasis, allowing consumers to anticipate higher tenderness and justifying elevated market values. Consumer preferences for tenderness vary by culture and demographics, influencing purchasing decisions and market trends toward more consistent quality assurances. For instance, Western consumers often prioritize high tenderness for immediate eating satisfaction, while some Asian cultures may favor slightly firmer textures in certain preparations, yet across groups, superior tenderness boosts loyalty and willingness to pay premiums. These variations underscore tenderness's role in shaping global meat demand and driving innovations in quality control.

Biochemical Mechanisms

Muscle Composition

Muscle tissue, the primary component of , is organized hierarchically, with sarcomeres serving as the fundamental contractile units bounded by Z-lines and consisting of overlapping A-bands formed by thick and thin filaments. These sarcomeres are arranged in series to form myofibrils, which bundle into muscle fibers that constitute the bulk of the muscle's intracellular volume. Surrounding these fibers are connective tissues: the endomysium envelops individual fibers, the perimysium bundles fibers into fascicles influencing the meat's texture and grain, and the forms the outer sheath of the entire muscle. This structural framework contributes to meat's baseline toughness, as the alignment and integrity of myofibrils and connective tissues determine resistance to mechanical breakdown during . The key proteins in muscle composition fall into contractile and stromal categories, each playing distinct roles in tenderness. Contractile proteins, primarily and , comprise the myofibrillar apparatus and account for about 50-60% of total muscle protein; their rigid cross-bridges post-contraction can impart by shortening sarcomeres and increasing . Stromal proteins, making up the connective tissues, include types I and III, which provide and background —type I predominates in endomysium and perimysium for tensile strength, while type III forms finer networks in perimysium; higher content (1-15% of dry weight in muscle) correlates with reduced tenderness due to its insolubility. , another stromal component, adds resilience and elasticity to connective tissues, further contributing to overall by resisting deformation. Intramuscular fat, often visible as marbling, is distributed within the perimysial spaces between muscle fibers and plays a lubricating role that reduces shear resistance during mastication, thereby enhancing perceived tenderness. This fat acts as a physical barrier, separating fibers and minimizing friction, with higher marbling levels (e.g., 2-16% variation in tenderness attribution) directly lowering Warner-Bratzler shear force values. Oleic acid, a monounsaturated fatty acid prevalent in marbling (up to 47% in some breeds), softens the fat by lowering its melting point to around 24°C, promoting a more fluid texture that improves mouthfeel and juiciness without altering fiber structure. Variations in muscle composition across meat types influence tenderness profiles; for instance, muscles typically exhibit larger fiber diameters (50-100 μm) and higher content (0.2-2% wet weight, varying by muscle and age) compared to , where fibers are smaller (20-60 μm) and is lower (0.2-0.4% wet weight) and more immature, resulting in inherently tender but less cohesive meat. These differences arise from species-specific myofiber and development, with 's robust stromal framework providing greater background while 's leaner, finer facilitates easier breakdown.

Post-Mortem Processes

Following slaughter, muscle tissue undergoes a series of biochemical changes that profoundly influence meat tenderness, beginning with the cessation of oxygen supply and the shift to anaerobic metabolism. The pH in the muscle declines from approximately 7.0 to 5.5 due to the accumulation of lactic acid from glycogen breakdown via glycolysis. This acidification activates certain enzymes while inhibiting others, and the ultimate pH achieved—ideally in the range of 5.5 to 5.8—optimizes tenderness by facilitating proteolysis without excessive toughening from high pH conditions. Deviations from this optimal range, such as pH above 6.0, can result in darker, firmer meat with reduced tenderness due to slower enzyme activity and altered protein denaturation. As ATP levels deplete post-mortem due to halted respiration and ongoing metabolic demands, muscle fibers enter , characterized by the formation of permanent actomyosin cross-bridges that cause initial stiffening and toughening. This process typically peaks between 24 and 48 hours after slaughter, with rigor onset occurring when ATP is reduced to about one-third to one-fifth of its level, leading to shortened sarcomeres and increased . The decline in during this phase further stabilizes these cross-bridges by reducing ATP regeneration, rendering the meat temporarily tough until resolution begins. Resolution of rigor mortis follows, driven by endogenous proteolysis that degrades key structural components, leading to softening over 7 to 14 days of aging under refrigerated conditions. The primary enzymes involved are the calpains (calcium-dependent proteases, particularly μ-calpain and m-calpain), which target Z-disks and myofibrillar proteins like titin, nebulin, and desmin, loosening the muscle structure and improving shear tenderness. Cathepsins, lysosomal enzymes released upon membrane disruption, contribute secondarily by further hydrolyzing myofibrils, especially in longer aging periods, though their activity is more pronounced at lower pH values around 5.0 to 5.5. This enzymatic breakdown is most effective when calcium levels rise post-mortem and temperature is controlled to avoid denaturation, resulting in up to a 30-50% reduction in Warner-Bratzler shear force values. Connective tissue, particularly , undergoes remodeling that modulates tenderness, as its heat-stable cross-links (mature with animal age) resist breakdown but can be partially solubilized post-mortem. Matrix metalloproteinases (MMPs), such as MMP-2 and MMP-9, play a key role in this by degrading fibrils and the , increasing solubility by 10-20% during the first 24 hours and beyond. This solubilization enhances tenderness in tougher cuts by reducing the mechanical strength of the endomysium and perimysium, though it is less impactful than myofibrillar in lean muscle portions. Overall, these post-mortem changes convert rigid muscle into tender meat, with tenderness peaking after sufficient aging time.

Factors Influencing Tenderness

Intrinsic Animal Factors

Intrinsic animal factors, encompassing biological and genetic attributes inherent to the animal, play a pivotal role in determining meat tenderness by influencing muscle structure, connective tissue composition, and enzymatic potential. These factors, which cannot be altered post-birth, set the baseline for how meat responds to subsequent processing and aging. Age and maturity significantly affect tenderness through changes in collagen characteristics. As animals age, the proportion of mature, thermally stable cross-links in collagen increases relative to reducible ones, leading to greater toughness upon cooking because these cross-links resist conversion to gelatin. For instance, meat from younger animals like veal is notably tenderer than that from mature beef due to fewer mature cross-links and higher collagen solubility. This age-related shift in cross-link maturity is a primary driver of reduced tenderness in older livestock, with studies showing progressive declines in shear force values correlating inversely with animal age. Breed and genetic makeup further modulate tenderness via variations in muscle protein degradation pathways. Bos indicus breeds, such as Brahman-influenced , produce tougher meat compared to Bos taurus breeds like Angus, primarily due to elevated calpastatin activity, which inhibits the calpain system responsible for . In 3/8 Bos indicus composites, 24-hour postmortem calpastatin levels are higher, resulting in slower tenderization during the first 7–14 days of aging, though tenderness improves after 21 days. targeting polymorphisms in the calpastatin (CAST) and μ-calpain (CAPN1) genes has shown promise, with favorable genotypes enhancing reductions and overall tenderness. Species differences arise from variations in muscle fiber architecture and susceptibility to stress-induced conditions. Poultry meat tends to be inherently tenderer than red meats owing to smaller myofiber diameters, which facilitate easier shearing and contribute to a finer texture. In contrast, pork is prone to the pale, soft, exudative (PSE) condition, where acute antemortem stress accelerates postmortem , causing rapid decline and protein denaturation that results in softer initial texture but reduced water-holding capacity and inferior tenderness in processed products. This PSE defect, linked to genetic factors like the gene in pigs, similarly affects poultry but is more pronounced in fast-growing broiler lines. Nutrition during growth influences tenderness by shaping deposition and muscle fiber traits. High-energy diets, particularly those rich in concentrates, promote marbling through enhanced , which lubricates muscle fibers and improves perceived tenderness during mastication. Dietary protein levels affect muscle fiber ; balanced intake supports optimal fiber development without excessive toughness, while low-protein regimens supplemented with can refine marbling patterns. Additionally, calcium intake, often boosted via D3 supplementation in the final fattening stage, elevates postmortem muscle calcium concentrations, activating calpains to accelerate and reduce aging time for tenderness achievement. These nutritional effects interact briefly with post-mortem activity to amplify tenderization potential.

Extrinsic Processing Factors

Pre-slaughter stress in livestock, particularly from handling, transportation, or environmental factors, triggers the release of adrenaline and other catecholamines, which accelerate glycogen depletion in muscle tissues. This depletion limits the post-mortem glycolysis process, resulting in a higher ultimate pH (typically above 5.8) and the development of dark-cutting beef, characterized by a dark, firm, and dry appearance. Dark-cutting meat is often tougher due to reduced proteolysis and altered sarcomere structure, negatively impacting consumer acceptability and shear force values. Studies have shown that minimizing stress through calm handling practices can preserve glycogen reserves, promoting a normal pH decline and improved tenderness, as detailed in related biochemical mechanisms. The method of slaughter significantly influences meat tenderness by affecting the rate of post-mortem changes. , applied immediately after , induces that accelerate and ATP depletion, thereby hastening the onset of . This intervention is particularly effective in preventing cold-shortening, a toughening mechanism where rapid chilling causes excessive before rigor completion, leading to shortened sarcomeres and increased . Research indicates that low-voltage can reduce cold-shortening incidence by maintaining optimal pH-temperature dynamics, resulting in up to 20% improvement in tenderness scores compared to non-stimulated carcasses. Carcass chilling protocols are critical for tenderness, as the rate and temperature of cooling directly impact muscle contraction. Optimal chilling at 0-4°C allows for gradual temperature decline, preventing cold-induced contraction by ensuring muscles enter rigor at temperatures above 10°C, which preserves longer sarcomere lengths and enhances tenderness. Rapid chilling below this threshold promotes cold-shortening, while temperature abuse—such as exposure to elevated temperatures (above 7°C for extended periods)—can accelerate excessive proteolysis and bacterial activity, leading to a mushy texture and drip loss. Controlled slow chilling has been shown to minimize these issues, with studies reporting lower Warner-Bratzler shear values in properly cooled beef loins. Storage conditions post-chilling play a key role in maintaining tenderness during aging and transport. Vacuum packaging creates an anaerobic environment that limits oxygen exposure, thereby reducing oxidation and protein denaturation, which can otherwise degrade myofibrillar structure and firmness. This method preserves tenderness by slowing oxidative processes, with research demonstrating that vacuum-packed retains lower thiobarbituric acid-reactive substances () levels and higher sensory tenderness scores after 20 weeks of chilled storage compared to aerobic packaging. Effective vacuum sealing also minimizes purge loss, supporting consistent texture throughout the .

Assessment of Tenderness

Sensory Evaluation

Sensory evaluation of meat tenderness relies on trained human panelists who assess texture through mastication and perception, providing subjective insights into eating quality that complement objective measures. Trained panels consist of individuals selected for their sensory acuity, free from biases such as strong food preferences, and undergo rigorous screening including discrimination, ranking, and scaling tests. Training typically spans 2-3 months with 6-10 sessions, using reference samples like beef strip loin cooked to 70°C and tenderloin to 65°C to calibrate responses for attributes such as firmness and chewiness. Panelists are taught to use standardized scales, such as an 8-point tenderness scale ranging from 1 (extremely tough) to 8 (extremely tender), or a 9-point scale for similar attributes, ensuring consistent intensity ratings across evaluations. The evaluation protocol standardizes preparation to minimize variability and replicate consumer cooking conditions. Meat samples, often from beef steaks or chops, are cooked using methods like broiling or to a precise internal of 71°C, then rested and cooled to before portioning into uniform cubes of approximately 1 cm³ or 1.27 cm cores. Panelists evaluate these samples in controlled environments, chewing a standardized number of times—typically using molars for firmness and incisors for shear—while rating attributes sequentially to avoid fatigue, with sessions limited to 6-8 samples per panelist. Key sensory attributes assessed include initial bite (first compression resistance), chewiness (effort to masticate to a swallowable bolus), and residue (amount of material remaining in the mouth after ), which collectively define perceived tenderness. These attributes show strong positive s with overall , with studies reporting Pearson correlation coefficients (r) of 0.7 to 0.9 between tenderness ratings and consumer liking scores for strip loin steaks. For instance, higher tenderness scores directly enhance overall , contributing up to 43% in multivariate models of eating experience. Despite its value, sensory evaluation has limitations, including inter- and intra-panelist variability arising from , day-to-day performance differences, or inherent biases, necessitating a minimum of 8-10 panelists per session for reliable data. This method is particularly employed in for premium brands to verify consistency in texture attributes that drive consumer satisfaction. Sensory assessments of tenderness correlate moderately with instrumental shear tests but capture nuanced perceptual elements like that machines cannot.

Instrumental Methods

Instrumental methods provide objective, quantifiable assessments of tenderness through mechanical and spectroscopic techniques, enabling consistent evaluation in and industry settings. These approaches measure physical properties such as shear resistance or compression behavior post-cooking, offering replicable data that correlates with sensory perceptions. The Warner-Bratzler Shear Force (WBSF) test is the most widely adopted instrumental method for evaluating tenderness, involving the shearing of cylindrical cores, typically 1.27 cm in diameter, using a V-shaped or triangular after cooking the sample to an internal of around 70°C. The maximum force required to shear the core, measured in kilograms or Newtons, inversely indicates tenderness, with values below 4 kg generally signifying tender . This method, standardized in protocols from the American Meat Science Association, focuses on the myofibrillar component of toughness and has been validated against trained sensory panels for reliability in longissimus dorsi muscles. Slice Shear Force (SSF) offers a faster alternative to WBSF, where a 1 cm thick slice of cooked meat is cut to the muscle orientation and sheared using a flat blade across the grain. This technique requires less sample preparation and time, typically steaks in under a minute, and yields force values in kilograms that strongly correlate with WBSF (r = 0.92) and sensory tenderness ratings. Developed for high-throughput analysis in , SSF is particularly useful for evaluating tenderness in commercial settings. Texture Profile Analysis (TPA) employs double compression testing to mimic , compressing a sample to 75% of its original height twice using a , which generates parameters like and cohesiveness. Hardness is defined as the peak force during the first compression cycle, expressed in Newtons, while cohesiveness measures the ratio of the area under the second compression curve to the first, indicating structural integrity. This method, adapted from Bourne's 1978 framework for food texture, provides multifaceted insights into meat's textural attributes beyond simple shear. Other instrumental devices include the Volodkevich bite tenderometer, which simulates action by compressing a 1 cm² cross-section of between two flat plates to assess maximum force and work done, offering a biomechanical of biting tenderness as originally described in 1938. Additionally, (NIRS) enables non-destructive prediction of tenderness by analyzing spectral reflectance from 800–2500 nm to estimate Warner-Bratzler shear force values without sample alteration, achieving correlations up to r = 0.85 with instrumental measures in . These methods collectively support precise tenderness classification while aligning with sensory validation.

Techniques for Tenderization

Mechanical Techniques

Mechanical techniques for tenderizing involve physical disruption of muscle structure to weaken fibers and connective tissues, thereby improving without relying on chemical or enzymatic agents. These methods are widely applied in both industrial processing and home preparation to address variability in meat , particularly for cuts from mature animals or those with high content. By mechanically altering the length and integrity, such techniques reduce the force required for shearing and enhance overall texture. Blade tenderization employs needles or thin blades to pierce the meat surface, severing muscle fibers and connective tissues along the grain. This process creates channels that not only break down structural barriers but also facilitate even distribution of natural juices during cooking. However, blade tenderization can introduce surface bacteria into the meat's interior, increasing foodborne illness risks; it should be cooked to an internal temperature of at least 71°C (160°F). Devices like the Jaccard tenderizer, a handheld tool with multiple fine blades, are commonly used for this purpose in both commercial and residential settings. Studies have shown that blade tenderization can reduce Warner-Bratzler shear force by 15-20% in tougher cuts such as the inside round, bringing tenderness levels closer to premium steaks like the tenderloin. For instance, in beef biceps femoris muscle, shear force decreased from approximately 104 N in controls to 87 N after blade tenderization alone, with further improvements when combined with other physical processes. This method is particularly effective for wholesale cuts like top sirloin or strip loin, where multiple passes of the tenderizer minimize variability in tenderness scores. Pounding with mallets or mechanical hammers physically compresses and disrupts the muscle's sarcomeres, the contractile units responsible for much of the 's toughness. By applying force to flatten and break down these structures, the technique shortens fiber length and reduces resistance to mastication, making the more uniform and easier to chew. This approach is especially suited to thin cuts such as escalopes or scallops, where the goal is to prepare the for quick cooking methods like pan-frying. Research indicates that pounding reorganizes muscle fibers without significantly altering nutritional content, leading to improved sensory tenderness in processed products like cubed steaks. In experimental evaluations, hammered meat exhibited lower shear values compared to untreated samples, though excessive force can increase cooking losses if not controlled. Electrical stimulation applies post-slaughter electrical pulses to the carcass, accelerating and the subsequent decline to prevent cold shortening—a common cause of in chilled . Typically delivered via low- to high-voltage systems (e.g., 40-80 V at intervals of 4 seconds on/2 seconds off for 60 seconds), this method induces rapid muscle contractions that exhaust energy stores, mimicking accelerated . In processing lines, it is integrated early postmortem (within 45 minutes) using overhead rail systems to ensure uniform application across the carcass. Quantitative assessments reveal tenderness enhancements, with Warner-Bratzler dropping by about 5-10% (e.g., from 3.84 kg to 3.64 kg) in muscle steaks from stimulated carcasses. Higher voltages around 500 V at frequencies like 2-14 Hz have been explored to optimize fall rates, particularly beneficial for hot-weather slaughter conditions where slow cooling exacerbates toughening. Hydrodynamic pressure, or high-pressure processing (HPP), subjects meat to intense hydrostatic pressures of 400-600 MPa in a non-thermal environment, causing conformational changes in proteins without heat-induced denaturation. This disrupts myofibrillar structures, including actin-myosin interactions and Z-disk integrity, leading to partial depolymerization and reduced firmness. Applied to prerigor or postrigor meat, HPP at these levels for 1-5 minutes enhances tenderness by up to 60% in shear force reduction for beef cuts, while preserving microbial safety and sensory attributes like color. For example, treatment at 175-225 MPa on prerigor muscle accelerates calcium release and glycolysis, yielding 60% lower shear values compared to controls. This technique is gaining traction in industrial settings for ready-to-eat products, where it synergizes with natural aging processes to achieve consistent tenderness without additives.

Chemical and Enzymatic Techniques

Chemical and enzymatic techniques for meat tenderization primarily involve the application of exogenous proteases and acidic solutions to break down muscle proteins, particularly myofibrillar and components, thereby reducing and improving . These methods target biochemical degradation at ambient or mildly elevated temperatures, distinguishing them from physical or thermal interventions. Plant-derived enzymes such as , extracted from latex, from stems, and ficin from latex, are the most commonly used proteolytic agents due to their efficacy in hydrolyzing myofibrillar proteins like and . These proteases exhibit optimal activity in the pH range of 6-7 and at temperatures of 50-60°C, where they cleave peptide bonds to weaken the muscle structure without requiring high heat. Acid employs weak organic acids, such as acetic acid from or from fruits, to lower the meat's to around 4-5, which denatures proteins and facilitates endogenous by activating lysosomal enzymes like cathepsins. This process swells muscle fibers and solubilizes , enhancing tenderness through partial of the . For instance, marinating in acidic solutions such as acetic acid can reduce Warner-Bratzler and enhance tenderness in cuts, while also improving flavor penetration. Similarly, at comparable concentrations yields analogous effects by accelerating protein unfolding and water retention during cooking. Brining with salt (NaCl) at concentrations of 2-4% increases , which promotes the extraction and solubilization of myofibrillar proteins, indirectly enhancing postmortem and tenderness by improving access to substrates. This ionic effect also disrupts electrostatic interactions within the muscle lattice, leading to greater protein hydration and reduced toughness upon cooking. Phosphates, typically added at 0.3-0.5% in combination with salt, further boost water-holding capacity by elevating slightly and stabilizing protein gels, which maintains juiciness and supports tender texture without direct enzymatic action. These additives are staples in commercial for their synergistic role in yield and quality enhancement. Among commercial enzymatic products, actinidin derived from kiwi fruit offers a milder alternative to or , hydrolyzing proteins at lower temperatures (around 20-40°C) to achieve tenderness without excessive bitterness. However, its application must be controlled—typically limited to 1-2 hours or inactivated by heat—to prevent over-tenderization, which can result in mushy textures from prolonged of both myofibrillar and stromal proteins. Products like kiwi extract-based tenderizers are increasingly used in retail formulations for their natural appeal and efficacy in treating tougher cuts.

Thermal and Other Methods

Thermal methods for tenderizing primarily involve controlled application during post-mortem storage or cooking, which activates endogenous enzymes or alters structural proteins like . Dry aging exposes to controlled low-temperature environments, typically 1-2°C for 1-28 days, allowing endogenous proteolytic enzymes such as calpains and cathepsins to break down myofibrillar and proteins, thereby improving tenderness. In contrast, wet aging stores in vacuum-sealed bags under similar conditions (0-4°C for up to 28 days), which retains moisture and minimizes while still permitting enzymatic to enhance tenderness, though it may result in less flavor development compared to dry aging. Cooking techniques leveraging thermal energy further tenderize meat by targeting denaturation and gelatinization. Low-temperature sous-vide cooking, conducted at 55-65°C for several hours, gradually denatures into soluble without causing excessive muscle fiber contraction or shrinkage, leading to improved tenderness in tougher cuts like beef brisket. Moist heat methods, such as at temperatures above 60°C (often 70-90°C in liquid), promote the gelatinization of , dissolving tough connective tissues into a tender, juicy matrix, which is particularly effective for cuts with high content. Alternative non-thermal energy-based methods, like ultrasound, provide rapid tenderization through physical disruption. Low-frequency ultrasound waves (20-40 kHz) generate cavitation bubbles that mechanically disrupt muscle fibers and accelerate enzymatic activity, potentially reducing required cooking times by up to 20% while enhancing overall tenderness without additives. Gamma irradiation represents another approach, using doses of 1-10 kGy to inactivate microbial pathogens and induce mild protein , which can slightly improve tenderness by weakening structural integrity. However, its application remains controversial due to potential flavor alterations, such as off-odors from oxidation at higher doses, despite regulatory approval for safety up to 10 kGy.

Current Research and Developments

Key Findings

The resolution of , a key process in postmortem tenderization, was first systematically studied in the 1930s through the development of the rigorometer by A.V. Bate-Smith, which allowed measurement of muscle stiffening and softening dynamics. This work laid the foundation for understanding how enzymatic breakdown contributes to tenderness during aging. The Warner-Bratzler test, originally devised in 1929 but refined and standardized in subsequent decades including the 1960s adaptations for consistent use, emerged as the primary instrumental method for quantifying tenderness via peak force required to shear cooked samples. In the , the calpain system—comprising μ-calpain and m-calpain—was identified as central to rigor resolution and tenderization through calcium-dependent of myofibrillar proteins, with its specific role in confirmed by the 1990s. Genetic research in the pinpointed polymorphisms in the μ-calpain gene (CAPN1) as key variants influencing tenderness, particularly in Bos taurus breeds; Australian studies, for instance, linked these markers to improved outcomes and estimated tenderness at approximately 0.23 across populations. Proteomic analyses have elucidated over 120 putative protein biomarkers involved in tenderization pathways, including structural components like and metabolic enzymes, highlighting and solubility changes as critical drivers in and other . A 2022 meta-analysis of traits confirmed negative correlations between total collagen content and tenderness (r = -0.45), underscoring how breed selection targeting low-collagen breeds can enhance overall meat quality by reducing toughness. Industry regulations have shaped tenderness practices, notably the European Union's 1989 ban on importing hormone-treated , which prohibited six growth-promoting substances and shifted focus to non-hormonal methods for managing meat quality attributes like tenderness. In 2023–2024 research, plant-derived proteases such as and ficin demonstrated efficacy in tenderizing low-value cuts, potentially minimizing food waste by converting tougher meats into palatable products without excessive overcooking.

Emerging Technologies

Genomics and technologies are advancing the enhancement of tenderness through targeted editing of genes associated with muscle development and . In particular, /Cas9-mediated editing of the (MSTN) gene in has demonstrated potential to improve tenderness by reducing values, a key indicator of texture. A 2024 comparative study across Luxi, Angus, and Mongolian breeds showed that MSTN-edited exhibited significantly lower (e.g., 8.98–10.45 N in muscle compared to 10.64–11.83 N in non-edited controls, p < 0.05), corresponding to approximately 15–20% improvement in tenderness without adversely affecting water-holding capacity. These findings build on earlier genetic associations, such as those involving the calpastatin (CAST) gene, but emphasize the precision of for inheritable modifications in livestock breeding programs. Nanotechnology offers promising solutions for controlled enzyme delivery in meat tenderization, addressing challenges like over-tenderization and uneven proteolysis. Nano-encapsulation techniques, such as liposomes, enable targeted release of proteases, enhancing stability and bioavailability during processing. A study utilizing liposome-encapsulated proteases (particle size ~365 nm) applied to beef demonstrated sustained proteolytic activity, with tyrosine release levels comparable to non-encapsulated forms after 24 hours (0.21 ± 0.03 ppm), while maintaining water-holding capacity similar to controls. Recent reviews highlight pilot applications of such nano-encapsulated enzymes in meat processing, minimizing structural disruption and supporting uniform tenderness without excessive cooking loss. Artificial intelligence and sensor technologies are enabling real-time tenderness prediction, facilitating quality control in slaughterhouses. Machine learning models, trained on imaging data, achieve high accuracy in assessing tenderness non-destructively. For instance, neural network-based analysis of raw meat photographs predicted tender cuts with 81.5% accuracy for pork and 76.5% for beef, outperforming traditional methods. Integration of ultrasound imaging with convolutional neural networks has similarly shown promise, with correlation coefficients exceeding 0.90 for related quality traits like intramuscular fat, paving the way for >90% predictive accuracy in tenderness by 2025 through expanded datasets and on-line systems. In the realm of sustainable meat production, lab-grown meat is optimizing tenderness via bioreactor controls that align muscle fibers for realistic texture. Hollow-fiber bioreactors with micro-anchor arrays promote myotube fusion and fiber orientation, mimicking natural muscle architecture to enhance mechanical properties and tenderness. A 2025 review details prototypes using such systems, including Upside Foods' patented hollow-fiber designs, which support scalable production of aligned beef tissues with improved shear force profiles in early cultured prototypes. These advancements address sustainability by reducing reliance on livestock while achieving tenderness comparable to conventional meat through precise environmental stimuli like shear stress and growth factors.

References

  1. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1600&context=hruskareports
  2. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20566247/
  3. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5599580/
  4. https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/30400510/19950004A1.pdf
  5. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174020301234
  6. https://www.ars.usda.gov/ARSUserFiles/60400515/ConsumerBeefTenderness2023.pdf
  7. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174024000567
  8. https://ift.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/1541-4337.70033
  9. https://www.iastatedigitalpress.com/mmb/article/id/10489/
  10. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/food-science/meat-tenderness
  11. https://www.iastatedigitalpress.com/mmb/article/id/16997/
  12. https://www.beefresearch.org/resources/product-quality/fact-sheets/tenderness
  13. https://www.usda.gov/about-usda/news/blog/whats-your-beef-prime-choice-or-select
  14. https://www.beefresearch.org/resources/product-quality/fact-sheets/beef-grading
  15. https://agriculture.institute/fresh-meat-technology/key-factors-influencing-meat-quality/
  16. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4789028/
  17. https://www.iastatedigitalpress.com/mmb/article/10489/galley/11528/view/
  18. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/12/12/1550
  19. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5018501/
  20. https://www.mdpi.com/2072-6643/4/1/1
  21. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10451819/
  22. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7750234/
  23. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/030917409390025D
  24. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22543183/
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11393900/
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10217372/
  27. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2213453018300600
  28. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4093471/
  29. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10195969/
  30. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11007300/
  31. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/030917408990034X
  32. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0309174023002279
  33. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0309174016301188
  34. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/postmortem-change
  35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1080744615314972
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6488330/
  37. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9222838/
  38. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10297439/
  39. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7065412/
  40. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5932941/
  41. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032579119386596
  42. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0309174007002732
  43. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8633366/
  44. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9354234/
  45. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5894400/
  46. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0309174008003677
  47. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0309174017301420
  48. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6769826/
  49. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174024002407
  50. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4093271/
  51. https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/10/5/1065
  52. https://www.mla.com.au/contentassets/365f8182b32048519e1fcbc0096d38c9/ref39_carcass_chilling_principles.pdf
  53. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174013001666
  54. https://agrilife.org/animalscience/files/2012/04/BeefCarcassChilling_White_Paper_final.pdf
  55. https://www.mdpi.com/2304-8158/12/15/2922
  56. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0309174025000762
  57. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/383889803_Vacuum_Packaging_Can_Protect_Ground_Beef_Color_and_Oxidation_during_Cold_Storage
  58. https://meatscience.org/docs/default-source/publications-resources/research-guide/amsa-research-guidelines-for-cookery-and-evaluation-1-02.pdf?sfvrsn=4c6b8eb3_2
  59. https://doi.org/10.1093/tas/txx008
  60. https://meatscience.org/docs/default-source/publications-resources/rmc/1997/standardizing-collection-and-interpretation-of-warner-bratzler-shear-force-and-sensory-tenderness-data.pdf?sfvrsn=2
  61. https://agrilife.org/animalscience/files/2012/04/ASWeb072-warnerbratzler.pdf
  62. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10521029/
  63. https://meatscience.org/docs/default-source/publications-resources/rmc/2003/slice-shear-force%282%29.pdf?sfvrsn=2
  64. https://meatscience.org/docs/default-source/publications-resources/rmc/1995/methods-for-the-objective-measurement-of-meat-product-texture.pdf?sfvrsn=2
  65. https://texturetechnologies.com/resources/texture-profile-analysis
  66. https://meatscience.org/docs/default-source/publications-resources/rmc/1957/mechanical-methods-of-measuring-tenderness-of-meat.pdf?sfvrsn=2
  67. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0309174098000059
  68. https://www.fsis.usda.gov/food-safety/safe-food-handling-and-preparation/meat/mechanically-tenderized-beef
  69. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10047955/
  70. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B9780128132807000086
  71. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24499119/
  72. https://academic.oup.com/fqs/article/doi/10.1093/fqsafe/fyad027/7191307
  73. https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1010&context=animalscidiss
  74. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10572579/
  75. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10528248/
  76. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/B978184569495150023X
  77. https://www.iastatedigitalpress.com/mmb/article/id/9520/
  78. https://www.meatpoultry.com/articles/5824-kiwi-based-meat-tenderizer-shows-promise
  79. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4872334/
  80. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4869541/
  81. https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/agricultural-and-biological-sciences/meat-aging
  82. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6233393/
  83. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0023643825011235
  84. https://www.mdpi.com/2076-3417/12/5/2365
  85. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S277250222500397X
  86. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12428365/
  87. https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/sustainable-food-systems/articles/10.3389/fsufs.2022.969503/full
  88. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S135041771831561X
  89. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12191474/
  90. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10178114/
  91. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0309174019307259
  92. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2772502224000568
  93. https://animalbiosciences.uoguelph.ca/~swatland/HTML10234/LEC13/LEC13.html
  94. https://today.uconn.edu/2023/07/using-new-tech-to-identify-the-cause-of-an-old-phenomenon-in-meat-tenderness/
  95. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2474649/
  96. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8394310/
  97. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33002652/
  98. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34839194/
  99. https://food.ec.europa.eu/food-safety/chemical-safety/hormones-meat_en
  100. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC11718972/
  101. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/1828051X.2023.2216712
  102. https://doi.org/10.5851/kosfa.2016.36.1.114
  103. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC12348261/
  104. https://www.tridge.com/news/ai-allows-predicting-meat-tenderness-and-fat-sakfed
  105. https://www.iastatedigitalpress.com/mmb/article/id/20157/
  106. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666833525002552
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.