International perspective: characterisation of United States Department of Agriculture and Meat Standards Australia systems for assessing beef quality

G. C. Smith; J. D. Tatum; K. E. Belk

doi:10.1071/EA08198

RESEARCH ARTICLE (Open Access)

Previous Contents Vol 48(11)

International perspective: characterisation of United States Department of Agriculture and Meat Standards Australia systems for assessing beef quality

G. C. Smith ^A ^B , J. D. Tatum ^A and K. E. Belk ^A

+ Author Affiliations

- Author Affiliations

^A Meat Science Program, Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523-1171, USA.

^B Corresponding author. Email: gary.smith@colostate.edu

Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48(11) 1465-1480 https://doi.org/10.1071/EA08198
Submitted: 16 July 2008 Accepted: 12 September 2008 Published: 16 October 2008

Abstract

The intent, in this manuscript, is to characterise the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) and Meat Standards Australia (MSA) systems for assessing beef quality and to describe the research evidence that supports the principles involved in grade application. USDA beef quality grading standards rely on carcass-trait-only assessments of approximate age of the animal at harvest and amount of intramuscular fat (as marbling) inside the muscles. USDA beef quality grading started 82 years ago. Then, as now, because no traceability system was in place, each animal’s history (exact age, feeding regimen, management practices, etc.) was incomplete; those who assigned quality grades used indicators of age (physiological maturity) and plane of nutrition (amount of marbling), and they do so still. Since 1926, research studies have identified a multitude of palatability-determining live-animal factors (e.g. genetics, use of hormonal growth promotants, high-energy diet finishing) and carcass-treatment factors (e.g. electrical stimulation, tenderstretch carcass suspension, postmortem aging) that cannot be incorporated into a carcass-trait-only quality assessment system. The USA beef industry has depended on development of more than 100 beef brands – some using palatability assurance critical control point plans, total quality management (TQM) philosophies, USDA certification and process verification programs, or combinations of live-animal factors, carcass-treatment factors and carcass-trait constraints – to further differentiate fresh beef products. The MSA grading system is a TQM grading approach that incorporates animal-specific traits (e.g. genetics, sex, age), control of certain pre-harvest and post-harvest processes in the beef chain, cut-specific quality differences and consumer preferences, into a beef pricing system. A unique aspect of the MSA grading system is that the grades are assigned to cuts or muscles, not carcasses; cuts or muscles from the same carcass are assigned individual (and in many cases, different) grades that reflect differences in expected eating quality performance among the various cuts of beef further adjusted to reflect the influence of cut or muscle aging and alternative cooking methods. The MSA grading system is still being modified and refined (using results of an extensive, ongoing consumer testing program), but it represents the best existing example of a TQM grading approach for improving beef quality and palatability. Research studies have shown that the accuracy of palatability-level prediction by use of the two systems – USDA quality grades for US customers and consumers and MSA grades for Australian customers and consumers – is sufficient to justify their continued use for beef quality assessment.

References

Anon. (2000) ConAgra beefs up ‘eatability’. National Provisioner 214, 26.

Belew JB, Brooks JC, McKenna DR, Savell JW (2003) Warner–Bratzler shear evaluations of 40 bovine muscles. Meat Science 64, 507–512.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | [Verified 18 September 2008]

MacPherson D (2004) Tender, tasty beef – every time. Nuffield Farming Scholarships Trust Report, Blaston Lodge Farm, Blaston, Market Harborough, Leicestershire, UK.

McKeith FK, Savell JW, Smith GC, Dutson TR, Carpenter ZL (1985a) Tenderness of major muscles from three breed-types of cattle at different times-on-feed. Meat Science 13, 151–166.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar | [Verified 18 September 2008]

Tatum JD , Gruber SL , Schneider BA (2007) ‘Pre-harvest factors affecting beef tenderness in heifers.’ (National Cattlemen’s Beef Association: Centennial, CO)

Thompson J (2002a) Managing meat tenderness. Proceedings of the International Congress of Meat Science and Technology 48, 17–27.

Thompson J (2002b) Managing meat tenderness. Meat Science 62, 295–308.
| Crossref | GoogleScholarGoogle Scholar |

Thompson J, Polkinghorne R, Watson R, Gee A, Murison B (1999) A ‘PACCP’ based beef grading scheme for consumers. 4. A cut based grading scheme to predict eating quality by cooking method. Proceedings of the International Congress of Meat Science and Technology 45, 20–21.

Thompson JM, Polkinghorne R, Hwang IH, Gee AM, Cho SH, Park BY, Lee JM (2008a) Beef quality grades as determined by Korean and Australian consumers. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1380–1386.

Thompson JM, Polkinghorne R, Porter M, Burrow HM, Hunter RA, McGrabb GJ, Watson R (2008b) Effect of repeated implants of oestradiol-17β on beef palatability in Brahman and Brahman cross steers finished to different market end points. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1434–1441.
| CAS |

Thompson JM, McIntyre BM, Tudor GD, Pethick DW, Polkinghorne R, Watson R (2008c) Effects of hormonal growth promotants (HGP) on growth, carcass characteristics, the palatability of different muscles in the beef carcass and their interaction with aging. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1405–1414.
| CAS |

Umberger WJ , Feuz DM , Calkins CR , Killinger KM (2000) Consumer preference and willingness to pay for flavor in beef steaks. Paper presented at the 2000 IAMA Agribusiness Forum, Chicago, IL. Available from the International Food and Agribusiness Management Association, College Station, TX.

USDA (1997) ‘United States standards for grades of carcass beef.’ (United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Marketing Service: Washington, DC)

Valin C (2000) Research objectives and requirements in meat science and technology. Proceedings of the International Congress of Meat Science and Technology 46, 24–29.

Vote DJ, Belk KE, Tatum JD, Scanga JA, Smith GC (2003) Online prediction of beef tenderness using a computer vision system equipped with a BeefCam module. Journal of Animal Science 81, 457–465.
| CAS | PubMed |

Watson R (2000) Predicting meat quality. Report to the Meat Science Program, Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Watson R (2008) Meta-analysis of the published effects of HGP use on beef palatability in steers as measured by objective and sensory testing. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1425–1433.
| CAS |

Watson R, Polkinghorne R, Thompson JM (2008a) Development of the Meat Standards Australia (MSA) prediction model for beef palatability. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1368–1379.

Watson R, Gee A, Polkinghorne R, Porter M (2008b) Consumer assessment of eating quality – development of protocols for Meat Standards Australia (MSA) testing. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1360–1367.

Watson R, Polkinghorne R, Gee A, Porter M, Thompson JM, Ferguson D, Pethick D, McIntyre B (2008c) Effect of hormonal growth promotants on palatability and carcass traits of various muscles from steer and heifer carcasses from a Bos indicus–Bos taurus composite cross. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 48, 1415–1424.
| CAS |

Wheeler TL, Shackelford SD, Koohmaraie M (2000) Relationships of beef longissimus tenderness classes to tenderness of gluteus medius, semimembranosus and biceps femoris. Journal of Animal Science 78, 2856–2861.
| CAS | PubMed |

Wulf DM, O’Connor SF, Tatum JD, Smith GC (1997) Using objective measures of muscle color to predict beef longissimus tenderness. Journal of Animal Science 75, 684–692.
| CAS | PubMed |

Wyle AM (2000) An evaluation of the palatability attributes of six beef product lines and the effectiveness of using the HunterLab BeefCAM System to predict beef palatability. MS Thesis. Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Wyle AM , Cannell RC , Belk KE , Goldberg M , Riffle R , Smith GC (1998) An evaluation of the portable HunterLab Video Imaging System (BeefCAM) as a tool to predict tenderness of steaks from beef carcasses using objective measures of lean and fat color. Final report to the National Cattlemen’s Beef Association. Department of Animal Sciences, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO.

Wyle AM, Vote DJ, Roeber DL, Cannell RC, Belk KE, Scanga JA, Goldberg M, Tatum JD, Smith GC (2003) Effectiveness of SmartMV prototype BeefCam System to sort beef carcasses into expected palatability groups. Journal of Animal Science 81, 441–448.
| CAS | PubMed |