Graham Gardner

Le Teagasc (institut irlandais de recherche-développement en agriculture) a organisé un workshop de la Commission Economique des Nations Unies pour l’Europe (CEE-ONU) sur la qualité sensorielle de la viande et la classification des carcasses ovines et bovines pour une meilleure satisfaction des consommateurs et la diffusion des normes de la CEE-ONU. Le workshop a également été soutenu par le “Meat Livestock Australia” (MLA). Par ailleurs et en parallèle, une formation a été organisée pour les participants intéressés par les marchés de la viande, la qualité de la production et les normes (de la CEE-ONU notamment) pour le commerce international. Ce workshop a eu lieu avant le 63ème Congrès International de la Science et de la Technologie des Viandes (ICoMST) et est, en partie, la continuité de workshops comparables préalablement organisés en Corée du Sud et en France à l’occasion des 56ème et 61ème ICoMST respectivement. Ce workshop a rassemblé 118 experts du secteur public ou du secteur privé (chercheurs, professionnels de la viande, etc) intéressés par le classement de la viande bovine et ovine selon son niveau de qualité. Les présentations des orateurs invités sont disponibles sur le site http://www.unece.org/index.php?id=45629. Les objectifs de ce workshop étaient de faciliter les collaborations internationales à venir sur l’évaluation de la qualité sensorielle et les initiatives professionnelles permettant le classement des carcasses afin de satisfaire les consommateurs de viande bovine et ovine. Ce workshop avait aussi pour objectif de faciliter le développement des marchés durables et l’intégration des pays d’Asie centrale ou des Balkans dans le marché mondial.

Teagasc (Irish R&D institute in agriculture) hosted a United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) workshop focusing on eating quality, beef and lamb carcass grading to underpin consumer satisfaction and the implementation of UNECE standards. The workshop was also supported by Meat Livestock Australia (MLA). In addition and in parallel, a training workshop was organized for participants interested in meat markets, quality production and standards for international meat trade particularly, the UNECE standards. This workshop took place before the 63rd International Congress of Meat Science and Technology (ICoMST) and is, in part, a follow up to similar workshops held in the Republic of Korea and France associated with the 56th and 61st ICoMST respectively. This workshop provided a dedicated forum bringing together researchers with an interest in beef and lamb grading for eating quality. The Conference gathered 118 public and private experts including regulators, scientists and meat professionals. The presentations by the note speakers are available on http://www.unece.org/index.php?id=45629. The objectives of the workshop were to facilitate further the international collaboration on sensory evaluation and industry systems underpinning carcass grading for consumer satisfaction of cooked beef and lamb. It also aimed to facilitate the development of sustainable meat markets and the integration of Central Asian and Balkan countries into international meat trade.

Quantifying consumer willingness to pay for beef will enhance the development of beef quality systems globally. Over 19,000 consumers from Northern Ireland, Poland, France and Australia participated in a sensory panel where they allocated beef samples to one of four categories: unsatisfactory, good-every-day, betterthan- every-day or premium quality. Consumers were then asked to detail their willingness to pay for these four categories, and complete a short demographic questionnaire which recorded their age, income bracket, occupation, gender, composition of the household and their attitude towards beef. Consumer willingness to pay for beef of different quality levels was found to be remarkably consistent between different demographic groups. Consumers were willing to pay between 150-200% more for premium beef and there was a 50% penalty in value for unsatisfactory beef. By far, the greatest influence of willingness to pay was country of origin. This difference was unable to be explained by the other demographic factors examined in this study, such as occupation, gender, frequency of consumption and the importance of beef in the diet. Consumer age had a small negative relationship with willingness to pay and the importance of meat in the diet had a small positive effect. Therefore, we can conclude that the willingness to pay for beef is highly transferrable between different consumer groups.

Delivering quality beef to the consumer relies upon both quantifying beef palatability and then accurately predicting that from information available at slaughter. Recent work has outlined the ability of carcass traits such as sex, age and breed to predict beef eating quality across a diverse range of countries and production systems in Europe. However, the variation of consumer responses to beef within Europe has yet to be quantified. Following Meat Standards Australia testing protocols, over 19,000 consumers from Northern Ireland, Poland, Ireland, France and Australia tasted cooked beef samples, scored the sensory characteristics and then allocated them to one of four quality grades; unsatisfactory, good-every-day, better-than-every-day and premium. A total of 22 different muscles, cooked by four different cooking methods and to three different degrees of doneness were tested. Linear discriminant functions were calculated for each experimental group, and for the dataset as a whole, using the sensory scores which were used to predict the consumer scored quality grade. Overall 26% of the beef was unsatisfactory. The discriminant analysis allocated 68% of samples to the correct quality grade, similar to previously reported values. Importantly, only 7% of the beef unsatisfactory to consumers was misclassified as acceptable. These results demonstrate that a MSA-like grading scheme could be used to predict beef eating quality and underpin a commercial eating quality guarantee these European countries.

The beef industry must respond to the changing market place and consumer demands. An essential part of this is quantifying consumer perception of beef quality across a broad range of demographics. Over 19, 000 consumers from four European countries tasted seven beef samples and sco red them for tenderness, juiciness, flavour liking and overall liking. Consumers also answered a short demographic questionnaire. The four sensory scores were analysed as dependent variables in linear mixed effects models. A fifth model was also establishe d using a weighted combination of the four sensory scores termed the MQ4 score (0. 3 *tenderness, 0.1*juiciness, 0. 3 *flavour liki ng and 0.3*overall liking). The answers to the demographic questionnaire were analys ed as fixed effects in the models. Consumer, session, country, serve order and the quality of the previous sample were controlled for in the analysis. Overall , there were only small differences in a consumer’s perception of beef eating quality between demographic groups. This indicates that a single quality descriptor could reliably predict eating quality for the entire market, providing a basis for a widespread, eating quality based, beef grading system in Europe.

Variable eating quality is a major factor in declining beef consumption. The relative accuracy of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) prediction system, which uses carcass traits to guarantee consumer eating equality, was evaluated within Europe. The MSA model was developed on beef steers and females, so it was expected to predict bulls and dairy breeds less accurately. In total 6,852 muscle samples from 482 carcasses from France, Poland, Ireland and Northern Ireland were evaluated by untrained consumers, according to MSA protocols. The scores were combined to form a Meat Quality Score (MQ4). Carcasses were MSA graded during processing. There were four breed categories; British beef breeds, Continental beef breeds, dairy breeds and crosses. The difference between the actual and MSA predicted MQ4 scores were analysed using a linear mixed effects model including the effects; carcass hang method, cook type, muscle type, sex, country, breed category and post mortem ageing period, with animal identification, grader and kill group as random terms. As expected the predicted MQ4 of females and steers was more accurate than for bulls. Accuracy varied between breed categories, but only for a minority of muscles and the effects were often contradictory. Therefore in a European eating quality prediction system similar to MSA a separate adjustment for bulls is required. Any differences in breed category are already adequately explained by factors currently present in the MSA model.

Ossification score and animal age are both used as proxies for maturity-related collagen crosslinking and consequently decreases in beef tenderness. Ossification score is strongly influenced by the hormonal status of the animal and may therefore better reflect physiological maturity and consequently eating quality. As part of a broader cross-European study, local consumers scored 18 different muscle types cooked in three ways from 482 carcasses with ages ranging from 590 to 6135 days and ossification scores ranging from 110 to 590. These scores were analysed with a linear mixed effects model using the full range of data and then again separately for carcasses with lesser and greater maturity. Across all the data, and for the carcasses with greater maturity, animal age had a greater magnitude of effect on eating quality than ossification score. In contrast, age had no relationship with eating quality for carcasses with lesser maturity leaving ossification score as the more appropriate measure. This is likely due to a loss of
sensitivity in mature carcasses where ossification scores are approaching the maximum value. Therefore ossification score is more appropriate for most commercial beef carcasses however it is inadequate for carcasses with greater maturity such as cull cows.