Prediction of beef eating quality in France using the Meat Standards Australia system

• Published in: Animal (Cambridge, England) Vol. 7; no. 3; pp. 524 - 529
• Main Authors: Legrand, I., Hocquette, J.-F., Polkinghorne, R. J., Pethick, D. W.
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press 01.03.2013; Elsevier Limited; Published by Elsevier (since 2021) / Cambridge University Press (until 2020); Elsevier
• Subjects: Animals; Australia; beef; beef quality; Cattle; Computer Science; Consumer Behavior - statistics & numerical data; consumer preferences; consumers; cooking; equations; Female; flavor; Food Industry - standards; France; Humanities and Social Sciences; Humans; ingestion; juiciness; Life Sciences; Male; Meat - classification; Meat - economics; Meat - standards; muscles; oysters; palatability; prediction; Product quality, human health and well-being; rump; sensory evaluation; steaks; Australia; France; prediction; consumers; beef quality; sensory evaluation; palatability
• ISSN: 1751-7311; 1751-732X; 1751-732X
• DOI: 10.1017/S1751731112001553

An experiment was set up for (i) comparing Australian and French consumer preferences to beef and to (ii) quantify how well the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) grading model could predict the eating quality of beef in France. Six muscles from 18 Australian and 18 French cattle were tested as paired samples. In France, steaks were grilled ‘medium’ or ‘rare’, whereas in Australia ‘medium’ cooking was used. In total, 360 French consumers took part in the ‘medium’ cooking test, with each eating half Australian beef and half French beef and 180 French consumers tested the ‘rare’ beef. Consumers scored steaks for tenderness (tn), juiciness (ju), flavour liking (fl) and overall liking (ov). They also assigned a quality rating to each sample: ‘unsatisfactory’, ‘satisfactory everyday quality’ (3*), ‘better than everyday quality’ (4*) or ‘premium quality’ (5*). The prediction of the final ratings (3*, 4*, 5*) by the French consumers using the MSA-weighted eating quality score (0.3 tn + 0.1 ju + 0.3 fl + 0.3 ov) was over 70%, which is at least similar to the Australian experience. The boundaries between ‘unsatisfactory’, 3*, 4* and 5* were found to be ca. 38, 61 and 80, respectively. The differences between extreme classes are therefore slightly more important in France than in Australia. On average, even though it does not have predictive equations for bull meat, the mean predicted scores calculated by the MSA model deviated from observed values by a maximum of 5 points on a 0 to 100 scale except for the Australian oyster blade and the French topside, rump and outside (deviating by <15). Overall, the data indicate that it would be possible to manage a grading system in France as there is high agreement and consistency across consumers. The ‘rare’ and ‘medium’ results are also very similar, indicating that a common set of weightings and cut-offs can be employed.