Hostname: page-component-f554764f5-sl7kg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-04-22T16:16:23.966Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

European conformation and fat scores have no relationship with eating quality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 January 2016

S. P. F. Bonny ,
D. W. Pethick ,
I. Legrand ,
J. Wierzbicki ,
P. Allen ,
L. J. Farmer ,
R. J. Polkinghorne ,
J.-F. Hocquette  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
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
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
G. E. Gardner
Affiliation:
School of Veterinary and Life Sciences, Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia
*
† E-mail: [email protected]
Get access

Abstract

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.

Keywords

meat qualitysensory testingEuropean conformation scoreEuropean fat score
Type
Research Article
Information
animal , Volume 10 , Issue 6 , June 2016 , pp. 996 - 1006
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allais, S, Leveziel, H, Payet-Duprat, N, Hocquette, J-F, Lepetit, J, Rousset, S, Denoyelle, C, Bernard-Capel, C, Journaux, L, Bonnot, A and Renand, G 2010. The two mutations, Q204X and nt821, of the myostatin gene affect carcass and meat quality in young heterozygous bulls of French beef breeds. Journal of Animal Science 88, 446–454.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Anonymous 2008. Accessory Publication MSA sensory testing protocols. From: Watson R, Polkinghorne R and Thompson JM 2008. Development of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) prediction model for beef palatability. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1368–1379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bonny, SP, Gardner, GE, Pethick, DW, Legrand, I, Polkinghorne, RJ and Hocquette, JF 2015. Biochemical measurements of beef are a good predictor of untrained consumer sensory scores across muscles. Animal 9, 179–190.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conroy, SB, Drennan, MJ, Kenny, DA and McGee, M 2009. The relationship of live animal muscular and skeletal scores, ultrasound measurements and carcass classification scores with carcass composition and value in steers. Animal 3, 1613–1624.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Conroy, SB, Drennan, MJ, McGee, M, Keane, MG, Kenny, DA and Berry, DP 2010. Predicting beef carcass meat, fat and bone proportions from carcass conformation and fat scores or hindquarter dissection. Animal 4, 234–241.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
De Roest, K 2015. Beef production, supply and quality from farm to fork in Europe. In Proceedings of the 66th Annual Meeting of the European Federation of Animal Science 31 August to 4 September, Warsaw, Poland, p. 230.Google Scholar
Field, RA 1971. Effect of castration on meat quality and quantity. Journal of Animal Science 32, 849–858.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fisher, A 2007. Beef carcass classification in the EU: an historical perspective. In European Association for Animal Production, pp. 19–30. Wageningen Academic Publishers, Dublin, Ireland.Google Scholar
Guzek, D, Głąbska, D, Lange, E and Głąbski, K 2014. Study of beef blade muscles’ differentiation depending on conformation and fat class. Turkish Journal of Veterinary and Animal Sciences 38, 195–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guzek, D, Glabska, D, Pogorzelski, G, Kozan, K, Pietras, J, Konarska, M, Sakowska, A, Glabski, K, Pogorzelska, E, Barszczewski, J and Wierzbicka, A 2013. Variation of meat quality parameters due to conformation and fat class in Limousin bulls slaughtered at 25 to 27 months of age. Australasian Journal of Animal Sciences 26, 716–722.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Indurain, G, Carr, TR, Goni, MV, Insausti, K and Beriain, MJ 2009. The relationship of carcass measurements to carcass composition and intramuscular fat in Spanish beef. Meat Science 82, 155–161.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Morgan, JB 1992. Tenderness problems and potential solutions. In Improving the consistency and competitiveness of beef: the final report of the National Beef Quality Audit, pp. 180–187. National Cattlemens’ Association, Englewood, CO, USA.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Polkinghorne, RJ and Thompson, JM 2010. Meat standards and grading: a world view. Meat Science 86, 227–235.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
O’Quinn, TG, Brooks, JC, Polkinghorne, RJ, Garmyn, AJ, Johnson, BJ, Starkey, JD, Rathmann, RJ and Miller, MF 2012. Consumer assessment of beef strip loin steaks of varying fat levels. Journal of Animal Science 90, 626–634.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soji, Z, Mabusela, SP and Muchenje, V 2015. Associations between animal traits, carcass traits and carcass classification in a selected abattoir in the Eastern Cape Province, South Africa. South African Journal of Animal Sciences 45, 278–288.Google Scholar
Strydom, PE 2011. Quality related principles of the South African beef classification system in relation to grading and classification systems of the world. South African Journal of Animal Science 41, 177–193.Google Scholar
Thompson, JM 2001. The relationship between marbling and sensory traits. In Beef CRC Marbling Symposium 2001, Coffs Harbour, NSW, Australia, pp. 30–35.Google Scholar
Thompson, JM 2004. The effects of marbling on flavour and juiciness scores of cooked beef, after adjusting to a constant tenderness. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 645–652.CrossRefGoogle 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
USDA 1997. United States standards for grades of carcass beef. United States Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC.Google 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.CrossRefGoogle 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