. 2019 Feb 28;39(1):54–64. doi: 10.5851/kosfa.2019.e3

Table 5. Effect of different aging methods on sensory evaluation of different beef cuts.

Traits (%)	Beef cuts	Non-aged	Aging method		SEM
Traits (%)	Beef cuts	Non-aged	Wet	Dry	SEM
Juiciness	Butt	2.72^by	3.32^aby	4.09^a	0.288
	Rump	3.22^aby	2.63^bz	3.86^a	0.237
	Sirloin	4.46^x	4.05^x	4.20	0.184
	SEM	0.301	0.195	0.211
Tenderness	Butt	2.57^b	3.57^axy	4.19^a	0.202
	Rump	3.11^b	3.06^by	4.02^a	0.206
	Sirloin	3.52	4.08^x	4.38	0.246
	SEM	0.256	0.219	0.174
Flavor	Butt	3.25^b	3.56^ab	4.19^ax	0.231
	Rump	3.14	3.01	3.56^y	0.161
	Sirloin	3.61^b	3.84^b	4.43^ax	0.165
	SEM	0.183	0.215	0.164
Overall acceptability	Butt	2.57^cy	3.28^by	4.08^a	0.220
	Rump	2.82^y	3.06^y	3.79	0.246
	Sirloin	3.69^bx	3.98^abx	4.34^a	0.143
	SEM	0.205	0.192	0.225

SEM, standard error of the means (n=12).

^a–c

Values with different letters within the same row differ significantly (p<0.05).

^x–z

Values with different letters within the same column differ significantly (p<0.05).