Japanese consumer categorisation of beef into quality grades, based on Meat Standards Australia methodology

Polkinghorne, Rod; Nishimura, Takanori; Neath, K.E.; Watson, Ray

doi:10.1111/j.1740-0929.2010.00825.x

Cited by 39 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 13 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…The degrees of freedom were determined using the Kenward and Rodger technique. The consumers were not expected to have much variation between countries on the basis of previous work Polkinghorne et al, 2011;Legrand et al, 2013). Individual base models were determined for the three different groups of data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ossification score is a better indicator of maturity related changes in eating quality than animal age

Bonny

Pethick

Legrand

et al. 2016

animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

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. The data were studied across three different maturity ranges; the complete range of maturities, a lesser range and a more mature range. The lesser maturity group consisted of carcasses having either an ossification score of 200 or less or an age of 987 days or less with the remainder in the greater maturity group. The three different maturity ranges were analysed separately with a linear mixed effects model. Across all the data, and for the greater maturity group, animal age had a greater magnitude of effect on eating quality than ossification score. This is likely due to a loss of sensitivity in mature carcasses where ossification approached and even reached the maximum value. In contrast, age had no relationship with eating quality for the lesser maturity group, leaving ossification score as the more appropriate measure. Therefore ossification score is more appropriate for most commercial beef carcasses, however it is inadequate for carcasses with greater maturity such as cull cows. Both measures may therefore be required in models to predict eating quality over populations with a wide range in maturity.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ossification score is a better indicator of maturity related changes in eating quality than animal age

Bonny

Pethick

Legrand

et al. 2016

animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The best combinations to predict beef quality were however slightly different between cooking methods: Grill MQ4 score = 0.3 tenderness + 0.2 juiciness + 0.2 flavor and 0.3 overall liking, whereas shabu shabu MQ4 score = 0.2 tenderness + 0.2 juiciness + 0.4 flavor and 0.2 overall liking. These differences in weightings have little impact on the prediction accuracy given the high correlation between the different sensory scores (0.76-0.96; Polkinghorne et al, 2011). In the USA, the boundaries between categories were found to be ca.…”

Section: Meat Standards Australiamentioning

confidence: 99%

Modelling of beef sensory quality for a better prediction of palatability

et al. 2014

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite efforts by the industry to control the eating quality of beef, there remains a high level of variability in palatability, which is one reason for consumer dissatisfaction. In Europe, there is still no reliable on-line tool to predict beef quality and deliver consistent quality beef to consumers. Beef quality traits depend in part on the physical and chemical properties of the muscles. The determination of these properties (known as muscle profiling) will allow for more informed decisions to be made in the selection of individual muscles for the production of value-added products. Therefore, scientists and professional partners of the ProSafeBeef project have brought together all the data they have accumulated over 20 years. The resulting BIF-Beef (Integrated and Functional Biology of Beef) data warehouse contains available data of animal growth, carcass composition, muscle tissue characteristics and beef quality traits. This database is useful to determine the most important muscle characteristics associated with a high tenderness, a high flavour or generally a high quality. Another more consumer driven modelling tool was developed in Australia: the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) grading scheme that predicts beef quality for each individual muscle x specific cooking method combination using various information on the corresponding animals and post-slaughter processing factors. This system has also the potential to detect variability in quality within muscles. The MSA system proved to be effective in predicting beef palatability not only in A C C E P T E D M A N U S C R I P T ACCEPTED MANUSCRIPTAustralia but also in many other countries. The results of the work conducted in Europe within the ProSafeBeef project indicate that it would be possible to manage a grading system in Europe similar to the MSA system. The combination of the different modelling approaches (namely muscle biochemistry and a MSA-like meat grading system adapted to the European market) is a promising area of research to improve the prediction of beef quality. In both approaches, the volume of data available not only provides statistically sound correlations between various factors and beef quality traits but also a better understanding of the variability of beef quality according to various criteria (breed, age, sex, pH, marbling etc).

show abstract

“…In terms of the Japanese consumer, Polkinghorne et al . () reported results on the sensory response of Japanese consumers to beef samples of a wide range of eating quality sourced from Japanese and Australian beef carcasses. The results showed that a single composite meat quality score (MQ4) could be created for the Japanese consumer response.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To achieve this, a sub‐set of the data from Polkinghorne et al . (), where Japanese consumers had eaten the same Australian paired meat samples to the Australian consumers, were used in this study.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A comparison of Japanese and Australian consumers’ sensory perceptions of beef

Polkinghorne

Nishimura

Neath

et al. 2013

Animal Science Journal

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a comparison of Japanese and Australian consumer sensory responses to beef, based on Meat Standards Australia methodology. Japanese and Australian consumers evaluated paired beef samples according to four sensory traits, and the weighted results were combined to produce a Meat Quality score (MQ4). The consumers also categorized the beef samples to one of four grades (unsatisfactory, good everyday, better than everyday and premium). The proportion of samples assigned to each grade was similar for Japanese and Australian consumers for yakiniku and shabu shabu cooking methods; however, Japanese consumers assigned lower scores to the grill samples. In terms of the MQ4 boundary scores between grades, these were very similar for both Japanese and Australian consumers across all cooking methods. In terms of the weightings for the four sensory traits, juiciness was more important for Japanese consumers than Australian for grill and shabu shabu cooking methods. Flavor had the highest weighting for both consumer groups. This study showed that a beef description system based on the MQ4 score, with some adjustments to the weightings and cut-off values, could be useful in describing the eating quality of beef for the Japanese consumer.

show abstract

Japanese consumer categorisation of beef into quality grades, based on Meat Standards Australia methodology

Cited by 39 publications

References 13 publications

Ossification score is a better indicator of maturity related changes in eating quality than animal age

Ossification score is a better indicator of maturity related changes in eating quality than animal age

Modelling of beef sensory quality for a better prediction of palatability

A comparison of Japanese and Australian consumers’ sensory perceptions of beef

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About