1. Meat Quality – using consumers to measure preferences P. Allen, A. White, K. Brandon & M. Henchion Teagasc Ashtown Food Research Centre

2. Beef Quality AFRC showed there was a problem with the consistency in the eating quality of beef AFRC showed there was a problem with the consistency in the eating quality of beef Similar findings in USA and Australia Similar findings in USA and Australia Carcasses are classified for fat cover and conformation (EUROP), which have little to do with eating quality Carcasses are classified for fat cover and conformation (EUROP), which have little to do with eating quality Consumers lack quality cues, mainly rely on colour – not related to eating quality Consumers lack quality cues, mainly rely on colour – not related to eating quality

3. Solution - PACCP Need grading based on eating quality Need grading based on eating quality No reliable on-line methods No reliable on-line methods Plenty of knowledge about factors that influence eating quality – CCP’s Plenty of knowledge about factors that influence eating quality – CCP’s Measure effects of these on consumer assessment of eating quality Measure effects of these on consumer assessment of eating quality Build predictive model Build predictive model

4. The PACCP approach Conception Consumption Consumer feedback Genetics Nutrition Pre-slaughter factors Post-slaughter factors Chilling/ageing Processing Cooking Packaging Critical Control Points

5. MSA model Measured effect of pre and post slaughter factors on consumer assessment of palatability Measured effect of pre and post slaughter factors on consumer assessment of palatability Over 10 year period used more than 60,000 consumers and 55,000 samples Over 10 year period used more than 60,000 consumers and 55,000 samples Began with carcass grading Began with carcass grading Realised important cut x cooking method interactions Realised important cut x cooking method interactions Now a cuts based model Now a cuts based model

6. Components of palatability Combination of all factors that make beef enjoyable to eat, assessed by sensory analysis and weighted to give quality score Combination of all factors that make beef enjoyable to eat, assessed by sensory analysis and weighted to give quality score Factors are (0-100) Factors are (0-100) tenderness x0.4 tenderness x0.4 juiciness x0.1 juiciness x0.1 flavour x0.2 flavour x0.2 overall liking x0.3 overall liking x0.3 = Meat Quality Score

7. Meat Quality Score Each sample tasted by 10 consumers and scored for palatability attributes Each sample tasted by 10 consumers and scored for palatability attributes Also select quality category - “unsatisfactory”, “good everyday”, “better than ge”, “premium” Also select quality category - “unsatisfactory”, “good everyday”, “better than ge”, “premium” Sample scores related to quality categories to give cut off points for 2*, 3*, 4* and 5* Sample scores related to quality categories to give cut off points for 2*, 3*, 4* and 5*

8. PACCP model for Ireland PACCP model for Ireland Project funded by DAFF from 2005 Project funded by DAFF from 2005 Test MSA model on Irish beef and Irish consumers Test MSA model on Irish beef and Irish consumers Particular attention to certain factors Particular attention to certain factors Look for ways to enhance model Look for ways to enhance model Make recommendations to industry re suitability of model Make recommendations to industry re suitability of model

9. Testing MSA model Irish consumers (720) tasted Irish beef and Australian beef Irish consumers (720) tasted Irish beef and Australian beef Australian consumers tasted same Australian samples Australian consumers tasted same Australian samples Consumer scores compared with predicted scores Consumer scores compared with predicted scores

10. Consumer panels Consumers invited to a central location to taste and rate 7 small pieces of cooked beef of unidentified cut Consumers invited to a central location to taste and rate 7 small pieces of cooked beef of unidentified cut Two cooking methods used on separate nights: Yakiniku & Grill Two cooking methods used on separate nights: Yakiniku & Grill Completed a socio-demographic questionnaire Completed a socio-demographic questionnaire MQS scores calculated MQS scores calculated for Irish consumers for Irish consumers

12. Results Irish and Australian consumer scores compared with each other and with model Irish and Australian consumer scores compared with each other and with model Concluded that model fitted as well for Irish as for Aus beef and consumers Concluded that model fitted as well for Irish as for Aus beef and consumers Some differences in weightings of palatability criteria Some differences in weightings of palatability criteria

13. Beef cuts v quality

14. Overall yak scored higher than grill Overall yak scored higher than grill Males ranked grilled steaks higher for flavour and overall liking than females Males ranked grilled steaks higher for flavour and overall liking than females Females ranked yak beef higher for tenderness than males Females ranked yak beef higher for tenderness than males Gender

15. No difference in tenderness No difference in tenderness Juiciness, flavour ranked higher by 20- 30 age group Juiciness, flavour ranked higher by 20- 30 age group Age

16. Palatability scores v category All palatability attributes improved with quality

17. Palatability scores v cut Consumers ranked cuts according to quality

18. What's it worth??? Willing to pay ~ €6/kg unsatisfactory Willing to pay ~ €6/kg unsatisfactory ~ €11/kg good everyday ~ €11/kg good everyday ~ €14/kg better than everyday ~ €19/kg premium quality ~ €14/kg better than everyday ~ €19/kg premium quality ………………….Consumers will pay for quality

19. Conclusions MSA model or similar likely to be effective for Irish beef MSA model or similar likely to be effective for Irish beef Variability of some cuts confirmed Variability of some cuts confirmed Consumers know their beef - once it has been consumed Consumers know their beef - once it has been consumed Some demographic differences Some demographic differences Consumers (say) willing to pay for quality Consumers (say) willing to pay for quality

20. THANK YOU