Meat Quality Grading Today Paul Allen

What is meat quality? • Can mean different things at each point in the supply chain • Consumer is ultimate arbiter – if it doesn’t satisfy expectations then they may not purchase again • At point of sale – appearance is important – colour, fatness, marbling, lack of drip, packaging • After cooking – tenderness, juiciness, flavour, overall experience • Can be assessed by trained panels – more descriptors can be used • Can be assessed by untrained consumers - large numbers

Why grade on palatability? • Inconsistent eating quality – AUS, US, IRL • Beef consumption declining • Increased competition • EUROP grading unrelated to palatability • Consumers willing to pay for quality

Current meat quality grading  

Most countries DO NOT grade on eating quality Notable exceptions are US and Australia

 

US – Carcasses graded on yield and quality Quality grade is based on visual assessment of marbling (loin) and maturity (hand held camera systems can be used) Marbling is the amount and distribution of visible flecks of fat within the eye muscle at 12th/13th rib  Marbling is primary factor in determining quality grade Maturity (physiological age) is assessed visually  Degree of ossification of cartilage on vertebrae and spinal processes, colour of bones  Colour and texture (fineness of grain) of loin muscle (less emphasis than ossification) All these are combined to give an overall quality grade – Prime, Choice, Select





  

Australia - Measures to improve tenderness known but not interactions - also based on expert panels not consumers MSA solution – predictive model using PACCP approach

The PACCP approach

Conception Genetics Critical Control Points Nutrition Pre-slaughter factors Post-slaughter factors Chilling/ageing Processing Consumer Packaging feedback Cooking Consumption

MSA grading  Assess effect of pre and post mortem factors to produce predictive model  Effects measured as response of consumers  Large database – 65,000 consumers, 420,000 samples  Very detailed protocols for sampling, cooking etc.

Cuts based model • •

•

Original model graded carcasses Became clear that cuts were different – can’t predict palatability of all cuts by grading carcass as cuts respond differently to various factors particularly ageing, carcass suspension and cooking method Therefore developed cuts based model – palatability of individual cuts predicted for range of cooking methods

Factors in the model 

Predictors           

Breed (BI) sex growth rate Electrical stimulation hanging method Marbling Ossification ageing cooking method pH rib fat



Basic criteria 

minimum stress

•

Thresholds for – – – –

ossification score pHu colour rib fat

Components of palatability 



Combination of all factors that make beef enjoyable to eat, assessed by sensory analysis and weighted to give quality score Main factors are    

tenderness juiciness flavour overall liking

x x x x

0.4 0.1 0.2 0.3

= Meat Quality Score

Consumer grades

Meat Quality Score

Ungraded

3 star

4 star

5 star

Grinding beef

Everyday quality

Better than Everyday

Premium quality

< 48

48 - 63

64 - 79

80+

Ag ed

cut

muscle

GRL

RST

SFR

TSL

0

spinalis

SPN081

77

67

77

73

Sex

M

tenderloin

TDR034

82

Y or ? / N

HGP

N

tenderloin

TDR062

78

Y/N

MFV

N

tenderloin

TDR063

73

Y/N

SlYr d

N

cube roll

CUB045

striploin

Format

Name

Input

% or X if doubt

EPBI

M/F

Y/N

RnFl

N

Weight in Kg

HSC W

268

AT/TS/TL/TC/TX

Han g

TX

?

?

76 77

80

74

69

69

69

71

STA045

65

65

67

67

striploin

STP045

63

64

66

67

oyster blade

OYS036

63

60

66

69

blade

BLD095

blade

BLD096

chucktender

CTR085

43 56

59

60

61

49

52

54

mm

Hum p

45

USDA measure

uoss

140

rump

RMP131

60

68

65

71

USDA measure

umb

220

rump

RMP231

63

71

70

69

mm

RbFt

5

rump

RMP005

64

72

72

Metered pH

UpH

5.58

rump

RMP032

71

75

Metered Temp C

Utm p

3

rump

RMP087

59

64

62

knuckle

KNU066

66

61

65

knuckle

KNU098

61

66

Days Aged

Age

14

53

Testing the MSA model • Funding from DAFM – FIRM programme • AUS – Ireland comparison • Irish commercial sample • Experiments to test factors • Ageing • Stimulation –LVES and HVES • Breed • Hanging method • Boning time –24 v 48h

AUS – IRL comparison  “Matched” set of samples

   

from Ireland and AUS – 18 carcasses from each country, 6 muscles from each carcass, 2 cooking methods AUS samples tasted by AUS and Irish consumers Irish samples tasted by Irish consumers Compare responses of AUS and Irish consumers Test fit of model to Irish beef and Irish consumers

Consumer testing  Individual muscles removed and trimmed  Samples prepared and frozen  Cooked in standard way (grilled, roasted, yakiniku) to medium done  Groups of 20 consumers (60 for roasts) – social clubs, sports clubs, charities etc.  Rate for tenderness, juiciness, flavour, overall like  Assign quality category = stars

Relationship between palatability scores and quality category 100

Palatabilityscores

90

Tendernes s Juicines s

80

Flavour

70

Overall

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 unsatisfactory

good everyday

better than everyday

premium

Scores for all palatability attributes increased with quality category

% of cuts falling in quality categories fillet

100%

striploin rump

80%

Beef Cut

blade outside round

60%

round

40% 20% 0% unsatisfactory

good everyday

better than everyday

premium

Considerable variability in quality for striploin, rump and round

Irish consumers v model Iris h R e s id u a ls (Ir-M ) 40 30 20 10 0

0

-10 -20 -30 -40 IB G

IB Y

IO G

IO Y

IR G

IR Y

IS G

IS Y

IT G

IT Y

IU G

IU Y

Deviations from model significant only for grilled striploin and Yakiniku topside

Irish v AUS consumers D iffe re n c e s (Ir-A u ) 40 30 20 10 0

0

-10 -20 -30 -40 BG

BY

OG

OY

RG

RY

SG

SY

TG

TY

UG

Deviations significant only for Yakiniku, rump and tenderloin

UY

Ageing and stimulation – Effect on MQS 90 80 70 60 50 40 30

Striploin Topside Outside

20 10 0 LVES

NON

14 days

LVES

NON

28 days

At 28 days LVES tended to improve MQS of striploin but reduced MQS for outside. Significant negative effect of ageing on OR.

Overall conclusions • Irish beef fits model at least as well as AUS beef • Model fits Irish consumers at least as well as AUS  Irish consumers score beef in similar way to AUS consumers, but not identical (Irish more weight on flavour) and model may need optimising  Model tested over wide range of factors with moderately large database - over 1100 samples  Accounts for different factors reasonably well in most circumstances  Some exceptions may be due to electrical inputs on line not accounted for

Success of MSA in AUS

No. of carcasses

Number of carcasses graded annually 700 600 500 400 300 200 100 0 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 Year

MSA grading pays

Average prices ($/kg, Real Dec'05) 21 20

19 18 17

16

MSA Linear (MSA)

15 Nov-04

Dec -04

Jan-05

Feb-05

M ar -05

M ar -05

NonMSA Linear (NonMSA) A pr -05

M ay-05

Jun-05

Jul -05

A ug-05

A ug-05

Sep-05

What’s the future for meat quality grading?  USDA model not appropriate since grading occurs at quartering  Rapid methods (such as NIR) have promise but are also most likely to be applied at quartering  MSA predictive model could be adopted  May not be optimised for Irish beef  MSA model also tested in NI, France, Poland – international effort to derive a European model  Could include age, breed etc. from ID, genetics, NIR, images of loin etc.

Thank you for listening!