Modelling of beef sensory quality for a better prediction of palatability

Abstract

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 x 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 A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTAustralia 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).

‘Would you eat cultured meat?’: Consumers' reactions and attitude formation in Belgium, Portugal and the United Kingdom

“…Possible reasons are the consecutive meat safety crises since the mid-nineties (Verbeke, Pérez-Cueto, de Barcellos, Krystallis & Grunert, 2010) followed by the more recent debates about the health (McAfee et al, 2010;Pan et al, 2012) and sustainability (Aston, Smith & Powles, 2012;Austgulen, 2014) consequences of meat production and consumption. In addition, variability of meat quality in general and palatability in particular may have led to consumer dissatisfaction and a gradual shift away from traditional muscle-type meat Hocquette et al, 2014). While a number of meat substitutes have been developed, such as products based on soy protein (with varieties including tofu and seitan) and Quorn®, many non-vegetarian consumers tend to avoid such products because they are insufficiently perceived as 'resembling meat' or as providing the same sensory experience as real meat (Hoek et al, 2011).…”

Fatty Acid Profiles, Meat Quality, and Sensory Palatability of Grain-fed and Grass-fed Beef from Hanwoo, American, and Australian Crossbred Cattle

“…Our previous studies have demonstrated that an increase in crude fat content in Hanwoo beef can increase the flavor, juiciness, tenderness, and overall palatability (Hwang and Joo, 2016; Jung et al , 2016). Numerous studies have demonstrated that marbling can positively influence eating quality traits including flavor, juiciness, and tenderness of meat (Frank et al , 2016a, Frank et al , 2016b; Hocquette et al , 2014; Legako et al , 2016). However, the relationship between fatty acids and sensory palatability remains largely unknown.…”

Consumer Acceptability of Intramuscular Fat

“…Many Asian consumers prefer moderate amounts of IMF in the meat they purchase, whereas visible fat is unpopular with Western (e.g., Europe, Australia) consumers. The amount of IMF within beef muscle varies widely depending on animal breed or genetics (Barendse, 2014; Hocquette et al , 2014; Widmann et al , 2011), the nutrition system (pasture or grain) (Duckett et al , 2013; Sithyphone et al , 2011; Van Elswyk and McNeill, 2014), animal maturity and weight (Duckett et al , 2014; Frank et al , 2016), primal (Pavan and Duckett, 2013) and other factors. Marbling describes the small flecks of visible fat deposited between individual muscle fiber bundles.…”