Beef quality grades as determined by Korean and Australian consumers

J. M. Thompson; R. Polkinghorne; I. H. Hwang; A. M. Gee; S. H. Cho; B. Y. Park; J. M. Lee

doi:10.1071/EA05111

RESEARCH ARTICLE (Open Access)

Beef quality grades as determined by Korean and Australian consumers

J. M. Thompson ^A ^F , R. Polkinghorne ^B , I. H. Hwang ^C , A. M. Gee ^D , S. H. Cho ^E , B. Y. Park ^E and J. M. Lee ^E

+ Author Affiliations

- Author Affiliations

^A Cooperative Research Centre for Beef Genetic Technologies, School of Environmental and Rural Sciences, University of New England, NSW 2351, Australia.

^B Marrinya Agricultural Enterprises, 70 Vigilantis Road, Wuk Wuk, Vic. 3875, Australia.

^C Department of Animal Resources and Biotechnology, Chonbuk National University, Jonju 561-756, Korea.

^D Cosign, 20 Eleventh Avenue, Sawtell, NSW 2452, Australia.

^E National Livestock Research Institute, Rural Development Administration, Suwon 441-350, Korea.

^F Corresponding author. Email: jthompso@une.edu.au

Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48(11) 1380-1386 https://doi.org/10.1071/EA05111
Submitted: 4 April 2005 Accepted: 20 June 2008 Published: 16 October 2008

Abstract

Consumer responses were examined in an incomplete factorial design where Australian consumers evaluated 216 beef samples derived from 18 cattle killed in Australia and Korean consumers evaluated 216 samples from the same 18 cattle, plus 216 similar samples from 18 Korean cattle. Samples of the Mm. triceps brachii, longissimus dorsi and semimembranosus were cooked using grill and Korean barbeque methods. Each sample was sensory tested by 10 consumers, who scored it for tenderness, juiciness, like flavour, and overall liking. Consumers then graded each sample as either unsatisfactory (2 star), good every day (3 star), better than every day (4 star), or premium (5 star) quality.

For those samples assessed by both Australian and Korean consumers, the Korean consumers graded a higher proportion of samples ‘unsatisfactory’ and a lower proportion of samples ‘premium’ grade product than Australian consumers. Using a composite meat quality score (MQ4) to predict grade, a discriminant analysis showed that the Korean consumers had boundary cut-offs for the lower grades, which were ~4–10 palatability units higher than the Australian consumers.

Analysis of the residuals between actual and predicted palatability scores showed that the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) grading model produced relatively unbiased estimates within ±2 MQ4 units for the different consumer groups, muscle and carcass suspension treatments, with the exception of the M. semimembranosus samples. Implications of the results for both Korean and Australian beef markets through the use of an empirical grading model to predict palatability are discussed.

Acknowledgements

This study was funded as a joint project between Meat and Livestock Australia, Sydney, and the NLRI, RDA in Suwon, Korea. Thanks are due to MSA staff who supervised the slaughter and grading of carcasses and to Cosign Pty Ltd, Sensory Solutions Pty Ltd and the NLRI staff for organising consumers and running the sensory evaluations.

References

Hwang IH, Polkinghorne R, Lee JM, Thompson JM (2008) Demographic and design effects on beef sensory scores given by Korean and Australian consumers. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1387–1395.

Park BY, Hwang IH, Cho SH, Yoo YM, Kim JH, Lee JM, Polkinghorne R, Thompson JM (2008) Effect of carcass suspension and cooking method on the palatability of three beef muscles as assessed by Korean and Australian consumers. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1396–1404.

Platter WJ, Tatum JD, Belk KE, Chapman PL, Scanga JA, Smith GC (2003) Relationships of consumer sensory ratings, marbling score, and shear force value to consumer acceptance of beef strip loin steaks. Journal of Animal Science 81, 2741–2750.
| CAS | PubMed |

Polkinghorne R , Watson R , Porter M , Gee A , Scott J , Thompson J (1999) Meat Standards Australia. A ‘PACCP’-based beef grading scheme for consumers. 1. The use of consumer scores to set grade standards. In ‘Proceedings of the 45th international congress of meat science and technology, 1–6 August 1999, Yokohama, Japan.’ pp. 14–15.

Polkinghorne R , Gee AM , Hwang IH , Park BY , Cho SH , Lee JM , Kim KN, Thompson JM (2003) A comparison of beef palatability in Korean and Australian consumers. In ‘Proceedings of the 49th international congress of meat science and technology, 31 August–5 September 2003, Campinas, Brazil.’ pp. 227–228.

Polkinghorne R, Thompson JM, Watson R, Gee A, Porter M (2008) Evolution of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) beef grading system. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1351–1359.

SAS (1997) ‘Applied statistics and the SAS programming language.’ (SAS Institute: Cary, NC)

Steel RGD , Torrie JH (1980) ‘Principles and procedures of statistics. A biometrical approach.’ (McGraw-Hill International Book Company: Sydney)

Thompson J (2002) Managing Meat Tenderness. Meat Science 62, 295–308.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Watson R, Polkinghorne R, Thompson JM (2008a) Development of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) prediction model for beef palatability. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1368–1379.

Watson R, Gee AM, Polkinghorne R, Porter M (2008b) Consumer assessment of eating quality – development of protocols for Meat Standards Australia (MSA) testing. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1360–1367.