International perspective: characterisation of United States Department of Agriculture and Meat Standards Australia systems for assessing beef quality

Abstract

Abstract. The intent, in this manuscript, is to characterise the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Meat Standards Australia (MSA) systems for assessing beef quality and to describe the research evidence that supports the principles involved in grade application. USDA beef quality grading standards rely on carcass-trait-only assessments of approximate age of the animal at harvest and amount of intramuscular fat (as marbling) inside the muscles. USDA beef quality grading started 82 years ago. Then, as now, because no traceability system was in place, each animal's history (exact age, feeding regimen, management practices, etc.) was incomplete; those who assigned quality grades used indicators of age (physiological maturity) and plane of nutrition (amount of marbling), and they do so still. Since 1926, research studies have identified a multitude of palatability-determining live-animal factors (e.g. genetics, use of hormonal growth promotants, high-energy diet finishing) and carcass-treatment factors (e.g. electrical stimulation, tenderstretch carcass suspension, postmortem aging) that cannot be incorporated into a carcass-trait-only quality assessment system. The USA beef industry has depended on development of more than 100 beef brands -some using palatability assurance critical control point plans, total quality management (TQM) philosophies, USDA certification and process verification programs, or combinations of live-animal factors, carcass-treatment factors and carcass-trait constraints -to further differentiate fresh beef products. The MSA grading system is a TQM grading approach that incorporates animal-specific traits (e.g. genetics, sex, age), control of certain pre-harvest and post-harvest processes in the beef chain, cut-specific quality differences and consumer preferences, into a beef pricing system. A unique aspect of the MSA grading system is that the grades are assigned to cuts or muscles, not carcasses; cuts or muscles from the same carcass are assigned individual (and in many cases, different) grades that reflect differences in expected eating quality performance among the various cuts of beef further adjusted to reflect the influence of cut or muscle aging and alternative cooking methods. The MSA grading system is still being modified and refined (using results of an extensive, ongoing consumer testing program), but it represents the best existing example of a TQM grading approach for improving beef quality and palatability. Research studies have shown that the accuracy of palatability-level prediction by use of the two systems -USDA quality grades for US customers and consumers and MSA grades for Australian customers and consumers -is sufficient to justify their continued use for beef quality assessment.

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

“…This conclusion was also found in previous studies in Japan (Polkinghorne RJ, personal communication), Korea and the United States of America (Smith et al, 2008). One of the goals of the current European research programme called ProSafeBeef (2007ProSafeBeef ( to 2011, in which France, Ireland, Germany, Belgium, Greece, the United Kingdom (among the major partners) are participating, is to try to establish a European prediction model for beef.…”

Effect of low- and high-forage diets on meat quality and fatty acid composition of Alentejana and Barrosã beef breeds

“…Moreover, no differences Table 4 Pearson's correlation coefficients between IMF (g/100 g of fresh muscle), major FA (mg/100 g of fresh muscle), shear force (WBSF, kg), CL (%) and sensory panel scores in Ll and St muscles from AL and BA bulls fed on LF or HF Effects of forage level on beef quality were found for the WBSF value and no significant correlation was recorded between tenderness scores and the WBSF value. Despite being the muscle studied in the vast majority of beef palatability research (Wheeler et al, 1997;Killinger et al, 2004;Dikeman et al, 2005;Wheeler et al, 2005;Smith et al, 2008), mainly due to its economical relevance and easy access, our study confirms that the results obtained for longissimus muscle cannot be extrapolated to the rest of the meat cuts/ muscles. Tenderness and tenderness-related traits are highly variable within and among beef muscles.…”

“…The ultimate question is how to predict meat quality obtained according to a certain production system, such as the ones used to produce beef in Portugal. In contrast to other countries (Polkinghorne et al, 2008;Smith et al, 2008), no system of meat eating quality assurance exists in Portugal. Due to their economical relevance, several studies were conducted in order to characterise AL and BA meats from a nutritional point of view (Alfaia et al, 2006;Costa et al, 2006;Alfaia et al, 2007;Costa et al, 2011).…”

“…Flavour desirability differences are related to the amount and composition of intramuscular fat (IMF; Fisher et al, 2000). In addition, the IMF content plays an important role in juiciness and tenderness of cooked beef at the time of consumption (Smith et al, 2008;Hocquette et al, 2010). Of these attributes, flavour is often rated as crucial but is also the least understood and further studies are needed to better understand the factors that influence meat flavour development (Myers et al, 2009).…”

“…This could be achieved by increasing the knowledge about the factors involved in AL and BA meat sensory quality. Some studies suggest that consumers are willing to pay a higher price for guaranteed tender beef (Shackelford et al, 2001;Chambaz et al, 2003) and research so far has been performed in order to predict meat palatability (flavour, juiciness and tenderness) and to establish a direct relationship between pricing and eating quality (Polkinghorne et al, 2008;Smith et al, 2008). These studies promoted the implementation of assertive beef quality grading standards, such as the Meat Standards Australia grading system, based on the knowledge of determinant factors of meat quality (live-animal factors, carcass-handling factors and carcass-trait constraints).…”