Entity

Time filter

Source Type

Australia

Legrand I.,Institute Of Lelevage | Hocquette J.-F.,French National Institute for Agricultural Research | Polkinghorne R.J.,431 Timor Road | Pethick D.W.,Murdoch University
Animal | Year: 2013

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. © 2012 The Animal Consortium. Source


Bonny S.P.F.,Murdoch University | Bonny S.P.F.,French National Institute for Agricultural Research | Pethick D.W.,Murdoch University | Legrand I.,Institute Of Lelevage | And 7 more authors.
Animal | Year: 2015

Ossification score and animal age are both used as proxies for maturity-related collagen crosslinking and consequently decreases in beef tenderness. Ossification score is strongly influenced by the hormonal status of the animal and may therefore better reflect physiological maturity and consequently eating quality. As part of a broader cross-European study, local consumers scored 18 different muscle types cooked in three ways from 482 carcasses with ages ranging from 590 to 6135 days and ossification scores ranging from 110 to 590. The data were studied across three different maturity ranges; the complete range of maturities, a lesser range and a more mature range. The lesser maturity group consisted of carcasses having either an ossification score of 200 or less or an age of 987 days or less with the remainder in the greater maturity group. The three different maturity ranges were analysed separately with a linear mixed effects model. Across all the data, and for the greater maturity group, animal age had a greater magnitude of effect on eating quality than ossification score. This is likely due to a loss of sensitivity in mature carcasses where ossification approached and even reached the maximum value. In contrast, age had no relationship with eating quality for the lesser maturity group, leaving ossification score as the more appropriate measure. Therefore ossification score is more appropriate for most commercial beef carcasses, however it is inadequate for carcasses with greater maturity such as cull cows. Both measures may therefore be required in models to predict eating quality over populations with a wide range in maturity. © The Animal Consortium 2015 Source


Bonny S.P.F.,Murdoch University | Bonny S.P.F.,French National Institute for Agricultural Research | Pethick D.W.,Murdoch University | Legrand I.,Institute Of Lelevage | And 7 more authors.
Animal | Year: 2016

European conformation and fat grades are a major factor determining carcass value throughout Europe. The relationships between these scores and sensory scores were investigated. A total of 3786 French, Polish and Irish consumers evaluated steaks, grilled to a medium doneness, according to protocols of the ‘Meat Standards Australia’ system, from 18 muscles representing 455 local, commercial cattle from commercial abattoirs. A mixed linear effects model was used for the analysis. There was a negative relationship between juiciness and European conformation score. For the other sensory scores, a maximum of three muscles out of a possible 18 demonstrated negative effects of conformation score on sensory scores. There was a positive effect of European fat score on three individual muscles. However, this was accounted for by marbling score. Thus, while the European carcass classification system may indicate yield, it has no consistent relationship with sensory scores at a carcass level that is suitable for use in a commercial system. The industry should consider using an additional system related to eating quality to aid in the determination of the monetary value of carcasses, rewarding eating quality in addition to yield. © The Animal Consortium 2016 Source


Hocquette J.-F.,French National Institute for Agricultural Research | Hocquette J.-F.,VetAgro Sup | Van Wezemael L.,Ghent University | Chriki S.,French National Institute for Agricultural Research | And 10 more authors.
Meat Science | Year: 2014

Despite efforts by the industry to control the eating quality of beef, there remains a high level of variability in palatability, which is one reason for consumer dissatisfaction. In Europe, there is still no reliable on-line tool to predict beef quality and deliver consistent quality beef to consumers. Beef quality traits depend in part on the physical and chemical properties of the muscles. The determination of these properties (known as muscle profiling) will allow for more informed decisions to be made in the selection of individual muscles for the production of value-added products. Therefore, scientists and professional partners of the ProSafeBeef project have brought together all the data they have accumulated over 20. years. The resulting BIF-Beef (Integrated and Functional Biology of Beef) data warehouse contains available data of animal growth, carcass composition, muscle tissue characteristics and beef quality traits. This database is useful to determine the most important muscle characteristics associated with a high tenderness, a high flavour or generally a high quality. Another more consumer driven modelling tool was developed in Australia: the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) grading scheme that predicts beef quality for each individual muscle. ×. specific cooking method combination using various information on the corresponding animals and post-slaughter processing factors. This system has also the potential to detect variability in quality within muscles. The MSA system proved to be effective in predicting beef palatability not only in Australia but also in many other countries. The results of the work conducted in Europe within the ProSafeBeef project indicate that it would be possible to manage a grading system in Europe similar to the MSA system. The combination of the different modelling approaches (namely muscle biochemistry and a MSA-like meat grading system adapted to the European market) is a promising area of research to improve the prediction of beef quality. In both approaches, the volume of data available not only provides statistically sound correlations between various factors and beef quality traits but also a better understanding of the variability of beef quality according to various criteria (breed, age, sex, pH, marbling etc.). © 2013 Elsevier Ltd. Source


Hocquette J.F.,French National Institute for Agricultural Research | Hocquette J.F.,VetAgro Sup | Botreau R.,French National Institute for Agricultural Research | Botreau R.,VetAgro Sup | And 11 more authors.
Animal Production Science | Year: 2014

Meat quality includes intrinsic qualities (the characteristics of the product itself) and extrinsic qualities (e.g. animal health and welfare, environmental impacts, price). There is still a high level of variability in beef palatability, which induces consumer dissatisfaction. We also observe a general trend towards an increasing importance of healthiness and safety (intrinsic) and environmental issues and animal welfare (extrinsic). Most grading systems describe carcasses using only animal traits (e.g. weight, conformation, fatness, animal age and sex). In North American and Asian countries, emphasis has been put on maturity and marbling. The European system is mainly based on yield estimation. The Meat Standards Australia grading scheme, which predicts beef palatability for each cut, proved to be effective in predicting beef palatability in many other countries. Some genetic markers are available to improve beef quality. In addition, gene and protein expression profiling of the bovine muscle revealed that the expression level of many genes and the abundance of many proteins may be potential indicators of muscle mass, tenderness, flavour or marbling of meat. The integration of all these parameters is likely to predict better beef palatability. The integration of extrinsic qualities in the prediction model increases the difficulty of achieving a global evaluation of overall meat quality. For instance, with respect to environmental issues, each feeding system has its own advantages and disadvantages. Despite this, win-win strategies have been identified. For example, animals that were less stressed at slaughter also produced more tender meat, and in some studies the most economically efficient farms had the lowest environmental impact. In other cases, there are trade-offs among and between intrinsic and extrinsic qualities. In any case, the combination of the different integrative approaches appears promising to improve the prediction of overall beef quality. A relevant combination of indicators related to sensory and nutritional quality, social and environmental considerations (such as e.g. carbon footprint, animal welfare, grassland biodiversity, rural development) and economic efficiency (income of farmers and of other stakeholders of the supply chain, etc.) will allow the prediction of the overall quality of beef mainly for consumers but also for any stakeholder in the supply chain. © CSIRO 2014. Source

Discover hidden collaborations