» Articles » PMID: 30004320

Review: Beef-eating Quality: a European Journey

Overview
Journal Animal
Publisher Elsevier
Date 2018 Jul 14
PMID 30004320
Citations 14
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This paper reviews recent research into predicting the eating qualities of beef. A range of instrumental and grading approaches have been discussed, highlighting implications for the European beef industry. Studies incorporating a number of instrumental and spectroscopic techniques illustrate the potential for online systems to non-destructively measure muscle pH, colour, fat and moisture content of beef with R 2 (coefficient of determination) values >0.90. Direct predictions of eating quality (tenderness, flavour, juiciness) and fatty acid content using these methods are also discussed though success is greatly variable. R 2 values for instrumental measures of tenderness have been quoted as high as 0.85 though R 2 values for sensory tenderness values can be as low as 0.01. Discriminant analysis models can improve prediction of variables such as pH and shear force, correctly classifying beef samples into categorical groups with >90% accuracy. Prediction of beef flavour continues to challenge researchers and the industry alike, with R 2 values rarely quoted above 0.50, regardless of instrumental or statistical analysis used. Beef grading systems such as EUROP and United States Department of Agriculture systems provide carcase classification and some indication of yield. Other systems attempt to classify the whole carcase according to expected eating quality. These are being supplemented by schemes such as Meat Standards Australia (MSA), based on consumer satisfaction for individual cuts. In Australia, MSA has grown steadily since its inception generating a 10% premium for the beef industry in 2015-16 of $187 million. There is evidence that European consumers would respond to an eating quality guarantee provided it is simple and independently controlled. A European beef quality assurance system might encompass environmental and nutritional measures as well as eating quality and would need to be profitable, simple, effective and sufficiently flexible to allow companies to develop their own brands.

Citing Articles

Dynamically cultured, differentiated bovine adipose-derived stem cell spheroids as building blocks for biofabricating cultured fat.

Klatt A, Wollschlaeger J, Albrecht F, Ruhle S, Holzwarth L, Hrenn H Nat Commun. 2024; 15(1):9107.

PMID: 39438462 PMC: 11496621. DOI: 10.1038/s41467-024-53486-w.


- Invited Review - Translational gut microbiome research for strategies to improve beef cattle production sustainability and meat quality.

Mizoguchi Y, Guan L Anim Biosci. 2024; 37(2):346-359.

PMID: 38186252 PMC: 10838664. DOI: 10.5713/ab.23.0387.


Polymorphism of Genes and Their Impact on Beef Quality.

Kostusiak P, Slosarz J, Golebiewski M, Grodkowski G, Puppel K Curr Issues Mol Biol. 2023; 45(6):4749-4762.

PMID: 37367051 PMC: 10297439. DOI: 10.3390/cimb45060302.


- Invited Review - Factors affecting beef quality and nutrigenomics of intramuscular adipose tissue deposition.

Baik M, Lee J, Kim S, Ranaweera K Anim Biosci. 2023; 36(2):350-363.

PMID: 36634658 PMC: 9899583. DOI: 10.5713/ab.22.0380.


Consumer Perception of Beef Quality and How to Control, Improve and Predict It? Focus on Eating Quality.

Liu J, Ellies-Oury M, Stoyanchev T, Hocquette J Foods. 2022; 11(12).

PMID: 35741930 PMC: 9223083. DOI: 10.3390/foods11121732.