Consumer assessment of eating quality – development of protocols for Meat Standards Australia (MSA) testing

R. Watson; A. Gee; R. Polkinghorne; M. Porter

doi:10.1071/EA07176

RESEARCH ARTICLE (Open Access)

Previous Next Contents Vol 48(11)

Consumer assessment of eating quality – development of protocols for Meat Standards Australia (MSA) testing

R. Watson ^A ^E , A. Gee ^B , R. Polkinghorne ^C and M. Porter ^D

+ Author Affiliations

- Author Affiliations

^A Department of Mathematics and Statistics, University of Melbourne, Vic. 3010, Australia.

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

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

^D 2 Oliver Street, Ashburton, Vic. 3147, Australia.

^E Corresponding author. Email: rayw@ms.unimelb.edu.au

Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48(11) 1360-1367 https://doi.org/10.1071/EA07176
Submitted: 12 June 2007 Accepted: 20 June 2008 Published: 16 October 2008

Abstract

Meat Standards Australia sought a consistent measure of the beef eating experience to the consumer. Rather than objective measurements or trained panel sensory assessment, it was decided to proceed with direct consumer assessment. Consumer-based assessment has much greater variation, but it has the decided advantage of validity. This paper summarises the path taken to obtain consistent consumer assessment. What meat samples to present to consumers? What responses to ask for? What to do with these responses when they were obtained? The answers to these questions have led to the MQ4 measure of consumer assessment of meat eating quality, which now forms the basis of the MSA predictive model.

References

AMSA (1995) ‘Research guidelines for cookery, sensory evaluation and instrumental tenderness measurements of fresh meat.’ (American Meat Science Association and National Live Stock and Meat Board: Chicago, IL)

Deppe C, Carpenter R, Jones B (2001) Nested incomplete block designs in sensory testing: construction strategies. Food Quality and Preference 12, 281–290.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | [Verified 14 July 2008]

Huffman KL, Miller MF, Hoover LC, Wu CK, Brittin HC, Ramsey CB (1996) Effect of beef tenderness on consumer satisfaction with steaks consumed in the home and restaurant. Journal of Animal Science 74, 91–97.
| PubMed |

Kunert J (1998) Sensory experiments as crossover studies. Food Quality and Preference 9, 243–253.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Perry D, Thompson JM, Hwang IH, Butchers A, Egan AF (2001) Relationship between objective measurements and taste panel assessment of beef quality. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 41, 981–989.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

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.

Poste LM, Butler G, Mackie D, Agar VE, Thompson BK (1993) Correlations of sensory and instrumental meat tenderness values as affected by sampling techniques. Food Quality and Preference 4, 207–214.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Staudte R , Sheather S (1991) ‘Robust estimation.’ (Wiley: New York)

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