Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-16T11:15:58.089Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Untrained consumer assessment of the eating quality of beef: 1. A single composite score can predict beef quality grades

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  10 November 2016

S. P. F. Bonny ,
J.-F. Hocquette ,
D. W. Pethick ,
I. Legrand ,
J. Wierzbicki ,
P. Allen ,
L. J. Farmer ,
R. J. Polkinghorne  and
G. E. Gardner
S. P. F. Bonny*
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia INRA, UMR1213, Recherches sur les Herbivores, F-63122 Saint Genès Champanelle, France
J.-F. Hocquette
Affiliation:
INRA, UMR1213, Recherches sur les Herbivores, F-63122 Saint Genès Champanelle, France Clermont Université, VetAgro Sup, UMR1213, Recherches sur les Herbivores, F-63122 Saint Genès Champanelle, France
D. W. Pethick
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia
I. Legrand
Affiliation:
Institut de l’Elevage, Service Qualite’ des Viandes, MRAL, 87060 Limoges Cedex 2, France
J. Wierzbicki
Affiliation:
Polish Beef Association Ul, Kruczkowskiego 3, 00-380 Warszawa, Poland
P. Allen
Affiliation:
Teagasac Food Research Centre, Ashtown, Dublin 15, Ireland
L. J. Farmer
Affiliation:
Agri-Food and Biosciences Institute, Newforge Lane, Belfast BT9 5PX, UK
R. J. Polkinghorne
Affiliation:
431 Timor Road, Murrurundi, NSW 2338, Australia
G. E. Gardner
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia
*
†E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

Quantifying consumer responses to beef across a broad range of demographics, nationalities and cooking methods is vitally important for any system evaluating beef eating quality. On the basis of previous work, it was expected that consumer scores would be highly accurate in determining quality grades for beef, thereby providing evidence that such a technique could be used to form the basis of and eating quality grading system for beef. Following the Australian MSA (Meat Standards Australia) testing protocols, over 19 000 consumers from Northern Ireland, Poland, Ireland, France and Australia tasted cooked beef samples, then allocated them to a quality grade; unsatisfactory, good-every-day, better-than-every-day and premium. The consumers also scored beef samples for tenderness, juiciness, flavour-liking and overall-liking. The beef was sourced from all countries involved in the study and cooked by four different cooking methods and to three different degrees of doneness, with each experimental group in the study consisting of a single cooking doneness within a cooking method for each country. For each experimental group, and for the data set as a whole, a linear discriminant function was calculated, using the four sensory scores which were used to predict the quality grade. This process was repeated using two conglomerate scores which are derived from weighting and combining the consumer sensory scores for tenderness, juiciness, flavour-liking and overall-liking, the original meat quality 4 score (oMQ4) (0.4, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3) and current meat quality 4 score (cMQ4) (0.3, 0.1, 0.3, 0.3). From the results of these analyses, the optimal weightings of the sensory scores to generate an ‘ideal meat quality 4 score (MQ4)’ for each country were calculated, and the MQ4 values that reflected the boundaries between the four quality grades were determined. The oMQ4 weightings were far more accurate in categorising European meat samples than the cMQ4 weightings, highlighting that tenderness is more important than flavour to the consumer when determining quality. The accuracy of the discriminant analysis to predict the consumer scored quality grades was similar across all consumer groups, 68%, and similar to previously reported values. These results demonstrate that this technique, as used in the MSA system, could be used to predict consumer assessment of beef eating quality and therefore to underpin a commercial eating quality guarantee for all European consumers.

Keywords

consumer testingbeefqualitygradingEurope
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 11 , Issue 8 , August 2017 , pp. 1389 - 1398
Copyright
© The Animal Consortium 2016 

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

Anonymous 2008. Accessory publication: MSA sensory testing protocols. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1360–1367.Google Scholar
Bonny, SPF, Gardner, GE, Pethick, DW, Legrand, I, Polkinghorne, RJ and Hocquette, J-F 2015. Biochemical measurements of beef are a good predictor of untrained consumer sensory scores across muscles. Animal 9, 179–190.Google Scholar
Bonny, SPF, Hocquette, J-F, Pethick, DW, Farmer, LJ, Legrand, I, Wierzbicki, J, Allen, P, Polkinghorne, RJ and Gardner, GE 2016a. The variation in the eating quality of beef from different sexes and breed classes cannot be completely explained by carcass measurements. Animal 10, 987–995.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bonny, SPF, Pethick, DW, Legrand, I, Wierzbicki, J, Allen, P, Farmer, LJ, Polkinghorne, RJ, Hocquette, J-F and Gardner, GE 2016b. European conformation and fat scores have no relationship with eating quality. Animal 10, 996–1006.Google Scholar
Bonny, SPF, Pethick, DW, Legrand, I, Wierzbicki, J, Allen, P, Farmer, LJ, Polkinghorne, RJ, Hocquette, JF and Gardner, GE 2016c. Ossification score is a better indicator of maturity related changes in eating quality than animal age. Animal 10, 718–728.Google Scholar
Chriki, S, Renand, G, Picard, B, Micol, D, Journaux, L and Hocquette, J-F 2013. Meta-analysis of the relationships between beef tenderness and muscle characteristics. Livestock Science 155, 424–434.Google Scholar
Farmer, LJ, Bowe, R, Troy, DJ, Bonny, SPF, Birnie, J, Dell’Orto, V, Polkinghorne, RJ, Wierzbicki, J, de Roest, K, Scollan, ND, Henchion, M, Morrison, SJ, Legrand, I, Roehe, R, Hocquette, JF and Duhem, K 2016. Report of the workshop ‘sustainable beef quality for Europe – a workshop for industry and scientists’. Viandes & Produits Carnés VPC‐2016‐32‐1‐6. pp. 1–10. http://www.viandesetproduitscarnes.fr/phocadownload/vpc_vol_32/3216_farmer_workshop_milan_qualite_viandes.pdf Google Scholar
Feuz, DM, Umberger, WJ, Calkins, CR and Sitz, B 2004. U.S. consumers’ willingness to pay for flavor and tenderness in steaks as determined with an experimental auction. Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics 29, 501–516.Google Scholar
Hocquette, J-F, Botreau, R, Picard, B, Jacquet, A, Pethick, DW and Scollan, ND 2012. Opportunities for predicting and manipulating beef quality. Meat Science 92, 197–209.Google Scholar
Hocquette, J-F, Legrand, I, Jurie, C, Pethick, DW and Micol, D 2011. Perception in France of the Australian system for the prediction of beef quality (Meat Standards Australia) with perspectives for the European beef sector. Animal Production Science 51, 30–36.Google Scholar
Hocquette, J-F, Van Wezemael, L, Chriki, S, Legrand, I, Verbeke, W, Farmer, L, Scollan, ND, Polkinghorne, R, Rødbotten, R, Allen, P and Pethick, DW 2014. Modelling of beef sensory quality for a better prediction of palatability. Meat Science 97, 316–322.Google Scholar
Huffman, KL, Miller, MF, Hoover, LC, Wu, CK, Brittin, HC and Ramsey, CB 1996. Effect of beef tenderness on consumer satisfaction with steaks consumed in the home and restaurant. Journal of Animal Science 74, 91–97.Google Scholar
Legrand, I, Hocquette, J-F, Polkinghorne, RJ and Pethick, DW 2013. Prediction of beef eating quality in France using the Meat Standards Australia system. Animal 7, 524–529.Google Scholar
Lorenzen, CL, Neely, TR, Miller, RK, Tatum, JD, Wise, JW, Taylor, JF, Buyck, MJ, Reagan, JO and Savell, JW 1999. Beef customer satisfaction: cooking method and degree of doneness effects on the top loin steak. Journal of Animal Science 77, 637–644.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, JB, Savell, JW, Hale, DS, Miller, RK, Griffin, DB, Cross, HR and Shackelford, SD 1991. National beef tenderness survey. Journal of Animal Science 69, 3274–3283.Google Scholar
Polkinghorne, R, Thompson, JM, Watson, R, Gee, A and Porter, M 2008. Evolution of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) beef grading system. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1351–1359.Google Scholar
Polkinghorne, RJ 2006. Implementing a palatability assured critical control point (PACCP) approach to satisfy consumer demands. Meat Science 74, 180–187.Google Scholar
Polkinghorne, RJ, Nishimura, T, Neath, KE and Watson, R 2011. Japanese consumer categorisation of beef into quality grades, based on Meat Standards Australia methodology. Animal Science Journal 82, 325–333.Google Scholar
Polkinghorne, RJ, Nishimura, T, Neath, KE and Watson, R 2014. A comparison of Japanese and Australian consumers’ sensory perceptions of beef. Animal Science Journal 85, 69–74.Google Scholar
Reicks, AL, Brooks, JC, Garmyn, AJ, Thompson, LD, Lyford, CL and Miller, MF 2011. Demographics and beef preferences affect consumer motivation for purchasing fresh beef steaks and roasts. Meat Science 87, 403–411.Google Scholar
Renand, G, Picard, B, Touraille, C, Berge, P and Lepetit, J 2001. Relationships between muscle characteristics and meat quality traits of young Charolais bulls. Meat Science 59, 49–60.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
SAS 2002. Applied statistics and the SAS programming language. SAS Institute, Cary, NC, USA.Google Scholar
Thompson, J, Polkinghorne, R, Gee, A, Motiang, D, Strydom, P, Mashau, M, Ng’ambi, J, deKock, R and Burrow, H 2010. Beef palatability in the Republic of South Africa: implications for niche-marketing strategies (ACIAR Technical Reports, pp. 1–56. Australian Centre for International Agricultural Research (ACIAR), Canberra, ACT, Australia.Google Scholar
Thompson, JM 2002. Managing meat tenderness. Meat Science 62, 295–308.Google Scholar
Thompson, JM, Polkinghorne, R, Hwang, IH, Gee, AM, Cho, SH, Park, BY and Lee, JM 2008. Beef quality grades as determined by Korean and Australian consumers. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1380–1386.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verbeke, W, Van Wezemael, L, de Barcellos, MD, Kügler, JO, Hocquette, J-F, Ueland, Ø and 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Watson, R, Gee, A, Polkinghorne, R and 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.Google Scholar
Watson, R, Polkinghorne, R and 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