Meat Quality – Meat Quality – using consumers to using consumers to

measure measure preferencespreferences

P. Allen, A. White, K. Brandon P. Allen, A. White, K. Brandon & M. Henchion& M. Henchion

Teagasc Ashtown Food Teagasc Ashtown Food Research CentreResearch Centre

Beef QualityBeef Quality AFRC showed there was a problem AFRC showed there was a problem

with the with the consistencyconsistency in the in the eating eating qualityquality of beef of beef

Similar findings in Similar findings in USAUSA and and AustraliaAustralia Carcasses are classified for fat cover Carcasses are classified for fat cover

and conformation (EUROP), which and conformation (EUROP), which have have little to do with eating qualitylittle to do with eating quality

Consumers Consumers lack quality cueslack quality cues, mainly , mainly rely on colour – not related to eating rely on colour – not related to eating qualityquality

Solution - PACCPSolution - PACCP

Need grading based on Need grading based on eating qualityeating quality No reliable on-line methodsNo reliable on-line methods Plenty of knowledge about factors that Plenty of knowledge about factors that

influence eating quality – influence eating quality – CCP’sCCP’s Measure effects of these on Measure effects of these on consumerconsumer

assessment of eating qualityassessment of eating quality Build Build predictive modelpredictive model

The PACCP approachThe PACCP approach

Conception

Consumption

Consumer feedback

GeneticsNutrition

Pre-slaughter factors

Post-slaughter factors

Chilling/ageingProcessing

Cooking

Packaging

Critical Control Points

MSA modelMSA model Measured effect of pre and post Measured effect of pre and post

slaughter factors on slaughter factors on consumer consumer assessmentassessment of palatability of palatability

Over 10 year period used more than Over 10 year period used more than 60,000 consumers and 55,000 samples60,000 consumers and 55,000 samples

Began with carcass gradingBegan with carcass grading Realised important Realised important cut x cooking cut x cooking

method interactionsmethod interactions Now a Now a cuts basedcuts based model model

Components of palatabilityComponents of palatability Combination of all factors that make Combination of all factors that make

beef beef enjoyableenjoyable to eat, assessed by to eat, assessed by sensory analysis and weighted to sensory analysis and weighted to give quality scoregive quality score

FactorsFactors are (0-100) are (0-100) tendernesstenderness x x 0.40.4 juicinessjuiciness x x 0.10.1 flavourflavour x x 0.20.2 overall likingoverall liking x x 0.30.3

= Meat Quality Score

Meat Quality ScoreMeat Quality Score

Each sample tasted by Each sample tasted by 10 consumers10 consumers and scored for palatability attributesand scored for palatability attributes

Also select Also select quality categoryquality category - - “unsatisfactory”, “good everyday”, “unsatisfactory”, “good everyday”, “better than ge”, “premium”“better than ge”, “premium”

Sample scores related to quality Sample scores related to quality categories to give cut off points for categories to give cut off points for 2*, 3*, 4* and 5*2*, 3*, 4* and 5*

PACCP model for IrelandPACCP model for Ireland

Project Project funded by DAFFfunded by DAFF from 2005 from 2005 Test MSA model on Test MSA model on Irish beefIrish beef and and

Irish Irish consumersconsumers Particular attention to certain factorsParticular attention to certain factors Look for ways to Look for ways to enhanceenhance model model Make Make recommendationsrecommendations to industry to industry

re suitability of modelre suitability of model

Testing MSA modelTesting MSA model

Irish consumers (720) tasted Irish Irish consumers (720) tasted Irish beef and Australian beefbeef and Australian beef

Australian consumers tasted same Australian consumers tasted same Australian samplesAustralian samples

Consumer scores compared with Consumer scores compared with predicted scorespredicted scores

Consumer panelsConsumer panels Consumers invited to a central location Consumers invited to a central location

to taste and rate 7 small pieces of to taste and rate 7 small pieces of cooked beef of cooked beef of unidentifiedunidentified cut cut

Two cooking methods used on Two cooking methods used on separate nights: separate nights: Yakiniku & GrillYakiniku & Grill

Completed a Completed a socio-demographicsocio-demographic questionnairequestionnaire

MQSMQS scores calculated scores calculated for Irish consumersfor Irish consumers

ResultsResults

Irish and Australian consumer scores Irish and Australian consumer scores compared with each other and with compared with each other and with modelmodel

Concluded that Concluded that model fitted asmodel fitted as wellwell for Irish as for Aus beef and for Irish as for Aus beef and consumersconsumers

Some differences in Some differences in weightingsweightings of of palatability criteriapalatability criteria

Beef cuts v qualityBeef cuts v quality

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

unsatisfactory better thaneveryday

Beef

Cut

fillet

striploin

rump

blade

outside round

round

46

48

50

52

54

56

58

60

62

64

Grlmale

Grlfemale

Yakmale

Yakfemale

Tenderness

Juiciness

Flavour

Overall

Overall yak Overall yak scored higher scored higher

than grill than grill Males ranked Males ranked

grilled steaks grilled steaks higher for flavour higher for flavour and overall liking and overall liking

than females than females Females ranked Females ranked

yak beef higher yak beef higher for tenderness for tenderness

than malesthan males

Gender

45

50

55

60

65

20-30Grl

31-50Grl

>50Grl

20-30Yak

31-50Yak

>50Yak

Tenderness

Juiciness

Flavour

Overall No No

difference in difference in tendernesstenderness

Juiciness, Juiciness, flavour flavour ranked ranked

higher by higher by 20-30 age 20-30 age

groupgroup

Age

Palatability scores v Palatability scores v categorycategory

0102030405060708090

100

unsatisfactory goodeveryday

quality

better thaneveryday

quality

PremiumQuality

Tenderness

Juiciness

Flavour

Overall

All palatability attributes improved with quality

Palatability scores v cutPalatability scores v cut

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

blade outside rump strip fillet topside

Tenderness

Juiciness

Flavour

Overall

Consumers ranked cuts according to quality

What's it worth???What's it worth???

Willing to pay Willing to pay ~ ~ €6/kg unsatisfactory€6/kg unsatisfactory

~ €11/kg good everyday~ €11/kg good everyday

~~ €14/kg better than everyday €14/kg better than everyday ~ €19/kg premium quality ~ €19/kg premium quality

…………………………………….Consumers will pay for quality.Consumers will pay for quality

ConclusionsConclusions

MSA model or similar likely to be MSA model or similar likely to be effective for Irish beefeffective for Irish beef

Variability of some cuts confirmedVariability of some cuts confirmed Consumers know their beef - once it Consumers know their beef - once it

has been consumedhas been consumed Some demographic differencesSome demographic differences Consumers (say) willing to pay for Consumers (say) willing to pay for

qualityquality

THANK YOUTHANK YOU