Meat Quality – using consumers to measure preferences

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 • Similar findings in USA and Australia • 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

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

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

5. MSA model • 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 • Began with carcass grading • Realised important cut x cooking method interactions • 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 • Factors are (0-100) • tenderness x 0.4 • juiciness x 0.1 • flavour x 0.2 • overall liking x 0.3 = Meat Quality Score

7. Meat Quality Score • Each sample tasted by 10 consumers and scored for palatability attributes • 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*

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

9. Testing MSA model • Irish consumers (720) tasted Irish beef and Australian beef • Australian consumers tasted same Australian samples • 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 • Two cooking methods used on separate nights: Yakiniku & Grill • Completed a socio-demographic questionnaire • MQS scores calculated for Irish consumers

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

13. Beef cuts v quality

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

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

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 ~ €11/kg good everyday ~ €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 • Variability of some cuts confirmed • Consumers know their beef - once it has been consumed • Some demographic differences • Consumers (say) willing to pay for quality

20. THANK YOU