Perception in France of the Australian system for the prediction of beef quality (Meat Standards Australia) with perspectives for the European beef sector
J. F. Hocquette A D , I. Legrand B , C. Jurie A , D. W. Pethick C and D. Micol AA INRA, UR 1213, Unité de Recherches sur les Herbivores (URH), Theix, F-63122 Saint-Genès Champanelle, France.
B Institut de l’Elevage, Service Qualité des viandes, Maison Régionale de l’Agriculture du Limousin, Boulevard des Arcades, 87060 Limoges Cedex 2, France.
C Murdoch University, Murdoch, WA 6150, Australia.
D Corresponding author. Email: jfhocquette@clermont.inra.fr
Animal Production Science 51(1) 30-36 https://doi.org/10.1071/AN10045
Submitted: 20 March 2010 Accepted: 27 August 2010 Published: 15 December 2010
Abstract
Australia has developed the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) grading scheme to predict beef quality for consumers. This system is comprehensive, accurate and scientifically supported. It is based on the development and the use of a research database with a large amount of data, including the use of a large-scale consumer testing system with cuts cooked in different ways as well as information on the corresponding animals, carcasses and cuts. The system is also based on statistical analyses carried out on this database to identify the critical control points of beef palatability which is indicated for individual muscles and for a specific cooking method and aging time. Experts involved in the French beef industry were questioned about their knowledge and views on the application of the MSA system. They recognised many qualities of the MSA system and it was judged as original, relevant and sufficiently mature in its application, and favouring scientifically based prediction of beef quality rather than replying on tradition and perceptions of quality. It was also thought to be credible, flexible and open ended. However, it was still considered to possess some weak points. Thus, while its development in Australia at the farmer and abattoir level has been impressive in a relatively short time, the final delivery of precise quality grades to consumers is still lacking at retail due to only partial implementation of the system. Its adaptability to France would be difficult due to the complexity of the French beef industry and market. But, the program is uniquely innovative and deserves consideration. It will facilitate awareness and induce much needed changes to underpin the preservation and the development of the beef sector in France and eventually in Europe.
References
Bastien D (2002) ‘La suspension pelvienne des carcasses de gros bovins: Quantification du gain de tendreté procuré par cette technique et contraintes pratiques de mise en oeuvre.’ Compte rendu final No. 2023208. (Institut de l’Elevage: Interbev, Ofival, Paris)Boulesteix P (2006) Congrès mondial Limousin en Australie, une expérience enrichissante (1ère partie). Bovins Limousins 168, 46–51. Adapted from The Australian Beef Industry, Prepared for the International Limousin Conference by Meat & Livestock Australia, Melbourne, April 2006.
Culioli J (1999) La qualité de la viande bovine: aspects biologiques et technologiques de la gestion de la tendreté. Bulletin de l’Academie Veterinaire de France 72, 25–46.
Denoyelle C, Lebihan E (2004) Intramuscular variation in beef tenderness. Meat Science 66, 241–247.
| Intramuscular variation in beef tenderness.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Dransfield E, Martin J-F, Bauchart D, Abouelkaram S, Lepetit J, Culioli J, Jurie C, Picard B (2003) Meat quality and composition of three muscles from French cull cows and young bulls. Animal Science 76, 387–399.
Geay Y, Bauchart D, Hocquette JF, Culioli J (2001) Effect of nutritional factors on biochemical, structural and metabolic characteristics of muscles in ruminants; consequences on dietetic value and sensorial qualities of meat. Erratum 41, 377
Goutefongea R, Valin C (1978) Study of bovine meat quality. 2. Comparison of the organoleptic properties of cow and young bull meat. Annales de Technologie Agricole 27, 609–627.
Griffith G, Rodgers H, Thompson J, Dart C (2009) The aggregate economic benefits to 2007/02 from the adoption of Meat Standards Australia. Australasian Agribusiness Review 17, 94–114.
Grunert KG (2005) Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand. European Review of Agriculture Economics 32, 369–391.
| Food quality and safety: consumer perception and demand.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Grunert KG (2006) Future trends and consumer lifestyles with regard to meat consumption. Meat Science 74, 149–160.
| Future trends and consumer lifestyles with regard to meat consumption.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Grunert KG, Bredahl L, Brunsø K (2004) Consumer perception of meat quality and implications for product development in the meat sector – a review. Meat Science 66, 259–272.
| Consumer perception of meat quality and implications for product development in the meat sector – a review.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Hocquette JF, Richardson RI, Prache S, Médale F, Duffy G, Scollan ND (2005) The future trends for research on quality and safety of animal products. Italian Journal of Animal Science 4, 49–72.
Hocquette JF, Lehnert S, Barendse W, Cassar-Malek I, Picard B (2007) Recent advances in cattle functional genomics and their application to beef quality. Animal 1, 159–173.
| Recent advances in cattle functional genomics and their application to beef quality.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DC%2BD2sXotlWhur4%3D&md5=26b908d3e4ab7f5b8cc42abf38f03833CAS |
INAO (2009) Notice technique définissant les critères minimaux à remplir pour l’obtention d’un label rouge en ‘Gros bovins de boucherie’. Available at http://www.inao.gouv.fr/public/home.php?pageFromIndex=textesPages/Label_rouge_(Guides_et_NT)410.php~mnu=410 [Verified November 2010]
Moëvi I, Hocquette JF, Jurie C, Micol D (2008) Expertise du système australien de prédiction de la qualité de la viande bovine (MSA). Quelles perspectives pour la filière française? CR No. 170832010. Institut de l’Elevage, Inra, Interbev, Office de l’Elevage.
Oliver MA, Nute GR, Furnols MFI, San Julian R, Campo MM, et al (2006) Eating quality of beef, from different production systems, assessed by German, Spanish and British consumers. Meat Science 74, 435–442.
| Eating quality of beef, from different production systems, assessed by German, Spanish and British consumers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Oury MP, Micol D, Laboure H, Roux M, Dumont R (2005) Assessment of the impact of herd management on sensorial quality of Charolais heifer meat. In ‘Indicators of milk and beef quality’. EAAP publication 112. (Eds JF Hocquette, S Gigli) pp. 447–451. (Wageningen Academic Publishers: Wageningen, The Netherlands)
Perry D, Thompson JM (2005) The effect of growth rate during backgrounding and finishing on meat quality traits in beef cattle. Meat Science 69, 691–702.
| The effect of growth rate during backgrounding and finishing on meat quality traits in beef cattle.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Polkinghorne R, Watson R, Thompson JM, Pethick DW (2008) Current usage and future development of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) grading system. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1459–1464.
| Current usage and future development of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) grading system.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Purchas RW, Aungsupakorn R (1993) Further investigations into the relationship between ultimate pH and tenderness for beef samples from bulls and steers. Meat Science 34, 163–178.
| Further investigations into the relationship between ultimate pH and tenderness for beef samples from bulls and steers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 1:CAS:528:DyaK3sXksVOqsL0%3D&md5=98ac9f54b2382d0a08f8928e3e4459f8CAS |
Rhee MS, Wheeler TL, Shackelford SD, Koohmaraie M (2004) Variation in palatability and biochemical traits within and among eleven beef muscles. Journal of Animal Science 82, 534–550.
Smith GC, Tatum JD, Belk KE (2008) International perspective: characterisation of United States Department of Agriculture and Meat Standards Australia systems for assessing beef quality. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1465–1480.
| International perspective: characterisation of United States Department of Agriculture and Meat Standards Australia systems for assessing beef quality.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Thompson JM (2004) The effects of marbling on flavour and juiciness scores of cooked beef, after adjusting to a constant tenderness. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 44, 645–652.
| The effects of marbling on flavour and juiciness scores of cooked beef, after adjusting to a constant tenderness.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Thompson JM, Polkinghorne R, Hwang IH, Gee AM, Cho SH, Park BY, Lee JM (2008) Beef quality grades as determined by Korean and Australian consumers. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1380–1386.
| Beef quality grades as determined by Korean and Australian consumers.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Verbeke W, Wezemael LV, de Barcellos MD, Kügler JO, Hocquette JF, Ueland O, Grunert KG (2010) European beef consumers’ interest in a beef eating-quality guarantee: insights from a qualitative study in four EU countries. Appetite 54, 289–296.
| European beef consumers’ interest in a beef eating-quality guarantee: insights from a qualitative study in four EU countries.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | 19961887PubMed |
Watson R, Gee A, Polkinghorne R, Porter M (2008a) Consumer assessment of eating quality – development of protocols for Meat Standards Australia (MSA) testing. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1360–1367.
| Consumer assessment of eating quality – development of protocols for Meat Standards Australia (MSA) testing.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Watson R, Polkinghorne R, Thompson JM (2008b) Development of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) prediction model for beef palatability. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1368–1379.
| Development of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) prediction model for beef palatability.Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |
Warriss PD, Kestin SC, Brown SN, Wilkins LJ (1984) The time required for recovery from mixing stress in young bulls and the prevention of dark cutting beef. Meat Science 10, 53–68.
Wheeler TL, Cundiff LV, Kock RM (1994) Effect of marbling degree on beef palatability in Bos taurus and Bos indicus cattle. Journal of Animal Science 72, 3145–3151.
