Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dzt6s Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T09:47:46.346Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prediction of beef eating quality in France using the Meat Standards Australia system

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 August 2012

I. Legrand ,
J.-F. Hocquette ,
R. J. Polkinghorne  and
D. W. Pethick
I. Legrand
Affiliation:
Institut de l'Elevage, Service Qualité des Viandes, MRAL, 87060 Limoges Cedex 2, France
J.-F. Hocquette*
Affiliation:
INRA, UR1213 Herbivores, 63122 Saint-Genès-Champanelle, France
R. J. Polkinghorne
Affiliation:
431 Timor Road, Murrurundi, NSW 2338, Australia
D. W. Pethick
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary and Biomedical Science, Murdoch University, Murdoch, Western Australia 6150, Australia
*
†E-mail: jfhocquette@clermont.inra.fr
Get access

Abstract

An experiment was set up for (i) comparing Australian and French consumer preferences to beef and to (ii) quantify how well the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) grading model could predict the eating quality of beef in France. Six muscles from 18 Australian and 18 French cattle were tested as paired samples. In France, steaks were grilled ‘medium’ or ‘rare’, whereas in Australia ‘medium’ cooking was used. In total, 360 French consumers took part in the ‘medium’ cooking test, with each eating half Australian beef and half French beef and 180 French consumers tested the ‘rare’ beef. Consumers scored steaks for tenderness (tn), juiciness (ju), flavour liking (fl) and overall liking (ov). They also assigned a quality rating to each sample: ‘unsatisfactory’, ‘satisfactory everyday quality’ (3*), ‘better than everyday quality’ (4*) or ‘premium quality’ (5*). The prediction of the final ratings (3*, 4*, 5*) by the French consumers using the MSA-weighted eating quality score (0.3 tn + 0.1 ju + 0.3 fl + 0.3 ov) was over 70%, which is at least similar to the Australian experience. The boundaries between ‘unsatisfactory’, 3*, 4* and 5* were found to be ca. 38, 61 and 80, respectively. The differences between extreme classes are therefore slightly more important in France than in Australia. On average, even though it does not have predictive equations for bull meat, the mean predicted scores calculated by the MSA model deviated from observed values by a maximum of 5 points on a 0 to 100 scale except for the Australian oyster blade and the French topside, rump and outside (deviating by <15). Overall, the data indicate that it would be possible to manage a grading system in France as there is high agreement and consistency across consumers. The ‘rare’ and ‘medium’ results are also very similar, indicating that a common set of weightings and cut-offs can be employed.

Keywords

beef qualitypalatabilitypredictionconsumerssensory evaluation
Type
Product quality, human health and well-being
Information
animal , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , March 2013 , pp. 524 - 529
Copyright
Copyright © The Animal Consortium 2012

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Ferguson, D, Thompson, J, Polkinghorne, R 1999. Meat Standards Australia, a “PACCP” based beef grading scheme for consumers. 3) PACCP requirements which apply to carcass processing. Book of Abstracts of the 45th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology, Yokohama, Japan, pp. 18–19.Google Scholar
Hocquette, JF, Chatellier, V 2011. Prospects for the European beef sector over the next 30 years. Animal Frontiers 1, 20–28.Google Scholar
Hocquette, JF, Gondret, F, Baéza, E, Médale, F, Jurie, C, Pethick, DW 2010. Intramuscular fat content in meat-producing animals: development, genetic and nutritional control, identification of putative markers. Animal 4, 303–319.Google Scholar
Hocquette, JF, Legrand, I, Jurie, C, Pethick, D, Micol, D 2011a. Perception of the Australian system for the prediction of beef quality (MSA) with perspectives for the European beef sector. Animal Production Science 51, 30–36.Google Scholar
Hocquette, JF, Lehnert, S, Barendse, W, Cassar-Malek, I, Picard, B 2007. Recent advances in cattle functional genomics and their application to beef quality. Animal 1, 159–173.Google Scholar
Hocquette, JF, Meurice, P, Brun, JP, Jurie, C, Denoyelle, C, Bauchart, D, Renand, G, Nute, GR, Picard, B 2011b. The challenge and limitations of combining data: a case study examining the relationship between intramuscular fat content and flavour intensity based on the BIF-BEEF database. Animal Production Science 51, 975–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hwang, IH, Polkinghorne, R, Lee, JM, Thompson, JM 2008. Demographic and design effects on beef sensory scores given by Korean and Australian consumers. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1387–1395.Google Scholar
Jurie, C, Cassar-Malek, I, Bonnet, M, Leroux, C, Bauchart, D, Boulesteix, P, Pethick, DW, Hocquette, JF 2007. Adipocyte fatty acid-binding protein and mitochondrial enzyme activities in muscles as relevant indicators of marbling in cattle. Journal of Animal Science 85, 2660–2669.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lyford, C, Thompson, JT, Polkinghorne, RJ, Miller, MF, Nishimura, T, Neath, K, Allen, P, Belasco, E 2010. Is willingness to pay (WTP) for beef quality grades affected by consumer demographics and meat consumption preferences? Australasian Agribusiness Review 18, 1–17.Google Scholar
Moëvi, I, Hocquette, JF, Jurie, C, Micol, D 2008a. Expertise du système australien de prédiction de la qualité de la viande bovine (MSA). Quelles perspectives pour la filière française ? Compte rendu n° 170832010 (TEND-06-058). Institut de l'Elevage, Inra, Interbev, Office de l'Elevage, Paris, France.Google Scholar
Moëvi, I, Hocquette, JF, Jurie, C, Micol, D 2008b. The Australian beef eating quality prediction model MSA: presentation, scientific and professional assessment. Rencontres autour des Recherches sur les Ruminants 15, 97–100.Google Scholar
Perry, D, Shorthose, WR, Ferguson, DM, Thompson, JM 2001. Methods used in the CRC program for the determination of carcass yield and beef quality. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 41, 953–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Polkinghorne, R, Watson, R, Porter, M, Gee, A, Scott, J, Thompson, J 1999. Meat Standards Australia, a “PACCP” based beef grading scheme for consumers. 1) The use of consumer scores to set grade standards. Book of Abstracts of the 45th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology, Yokohama, Japan, pp. 14–15.Google Scholar
Smith, GC, Tatum, JD, Belk, KE 2008. International perspective: characterization of United States Department of Agriculture and Meat Standards Australia systems for assessing beef quality. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1465–1480.Google Scholar
Thompson, JM 2002. Managing meat tenderness. Meat Science 60, 365–369.Google Scholar
Thompson, J, Polkinghorne, R, Hearnshaw, H, Ferguson, D 1999a. Meat Standards Australia, a “PACCP” based beef grading scheme for consumers. 2) PACCP requirements which apply to the production sector. Book of Abstracts of the 45th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology, Yokohama, Japan, pp. 16–17.Google Scholar
Thompson, J, Polkinghorne, R, Watson, R, Gee, A, Murison, B 1999b. Meat Standards Australia, a “PACCP” based beef grading scheme for consumers. 4) A cut based grading scheme to predict eating quality by cooking method. Book of Abstracts of the 45th International Congress of Meat Science and Technology, Yokohama, Japan, pp. 20–21.Google Scholar
Thompson, JM, Polkinghorne, R, Hwang, IH, Gee, AM, Cho, SH, Park, BY, Lee, JM 2008. Beef quality grades as determined by Korean and Australian consumers. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1380–1386.Google Scholar
Thompson, JM, Polkinghorne, RJ, Gee, A, Motiang, D, Strydom, P, Mashau, M, Ng'ambi, J, de Kock, R, Burrow, H 2010. Beef palatability in the Republic of South Africa: implications for niche-marketing strategies. ACIAR Technical Reports 72. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Canberra, Australia.Google Scholar
Verbeke, W, Wezemael, LV, de Barcellos, MD, Kügler, JO, Hocquette, JF, Ueland, O, Grunert, KG 2010. European beef consumers’ interest in a beef eating-quality guarantee: insights from a qualitative study in four EU countries. Appetite 54, 289–296.Google Scholar
Watson, R, Gee, A, Polkinghorne, R, Porter, M 2008a. Consumer assessment of eating quality – development of protocols for Meat Standards Australia (MSA) testing. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1360–1367. Accessory publication: http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=EA07176_AC.pdfGoogle Scholar
Watson, R, Polkinghorne, R, Thompson, JM 2008b. Development of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) prediction model for beef palatability. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1368–1379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar