Peyton Arnold

Mrs. Peyton Arnold


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

1Year (2026-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
23 May 2026 in Foods
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
PAPeyton Arnold
Peyton Arnold
CCCameron Catrett
Cameron Catrett
PDPalika Dias-Morse
Palika Dias-Morse
JAJennifer C Acuff
Jennifer C Acuff
DSDerico Setyabrata
Derico Setyabrata
This study evaluated the impact of treated dry-aged crust inclusions on final ground beef quality. Ground beef (80 lean: 20 fat) was divided into: CON (beef only), NTC (non-treated crust), WW (warm-water-washed crust), DH (dehydrated crust), and SV (sous-vide crust). Treated crusts were chopped, mixed with ground beef (10% inclusion), reground, formed into patties, and subjected to quality and microbial analyses. The pH for day 1 (d1) samples was lower than for day 7 (d7) samples regardless of treatment (p < 0.05). No differences were found for proximate analysis, cook loss, or display loss (p > 0.05). An interaction effect was observed for all color traits (p < 0.05), demonstrating rapid color decline during display in both NTC and WW treatments compared to other treatments. Greater lipid oxidation was observed in CON compared to other treatments before and after display (p < 0.05). The CON, DH, and SV treatments had lower microbial concentrations than NTC and WW (p < 0.05). Texture profile analysis showed elevated hardness values in SV compared to CON, NTC, and WW, while DH did not differ from any treatment (p < 0.05). Our results indicate that DH and SV interventions minimally impact product quality while reducing initial microbial concentrations, suggesting potential use as intervention methods for dry-aged crust.