Characterisation of Beef Palatability for Korean and Australian Consumers John Thompson, Rod Polkinghorne, Alan Gee Jong-Moon Lee, InHo Hwang and Kyungnam.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
... and you are gonna like it!
Advertisements

Cattle By: Kristi Hart Livestock Evaluation. Objectives Identify ideal structure, soundness, finish. Describe an ideal market steer.
BEEF CARCASS YIELD AND QUALITY GRADING
THE DOMESTIC MARKET. US POPULATION FACTORS THAT INFLUENCE DOMESTIC DEMAND A LOOK AT LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS.
USMEF “New Cuts” Seminar Carcass Utilization: The “New” Japan Market Brett Stuart Director of Trade Analysis Omaha, Nebraska November 29, 2005.
On farm comparison of different alternatives for surgical castration without anaesthesia 1)Carcass quality and boar taint prevalence: evaluation on 20.
Stephen B. Smith Department of Animal Science Texas A&M University.
New Chuck Roll Cuts: The Next Frontier. Agenda Increasing Beef Demand Program Background NEW! Chuck Roll Cuts: The Next Frontier –The Denver Cut –America’s.
Beef Production System in Korea. Table of Content Overview of Republic of Korea Beef consumption Domestic Beef Production and Imported beef The Hanwoo.
Age classification: Quo vadis? Phillip Strydom Agricultural Research Council Irene Tel: SAFA Conference 18 March 2010.
Chasing hard to get cases in panel surveys – is it worth it? Nicole Watson, University of Melbourne Mark Wooden, University of Melbourne.
Beef Judging ANS4615. Beef Judging Key to beef judging requires accurate grading skills Successful evaluation of quality and yield grading is essential.
Pork Carcass Value Determining Traits. Important Carcasses are ranked from the most valuable to the least valuable. –Therefore a general understanding.
Beef Carcass and Primal Cuts Placing Confidence Value determination Logical reasoning Personal drive Competitiveness Team work Point conveyance Responsibility.
 While Quality grade deals with a prediction of the eating quality of the meat, Yield grade is a measurement of the amount of edible meat that the carcass.
BEEF and PORK.
A Taste Like No Other ® A product of Seaboard Foods.
Beef It’s What’s for Dinner!. Wholesale Cuts
Understanding Beef.
Meat Goat Carcass Merit Dr. Dwight Loveday University of Tennessee-Knoxville Department of Food Science & Technology.
The latest eating quality science managing intramuscular fat and tenderness to improve the consumer eating experience Dave Pethick Lis Pannier & the Sheep.
Meat standards and grading Introduction This paper seeks to address principles relating to meat standards and grading that apply globally. In the.
Quality and Yield Grading Beef Quality Grading  Used to predict the palatability (taste) of the meat.  Determined by the age and marbling (intramuscular.
Gender protrayal1 Cross cultural study of gender portrayal in children ’ s television commercials: Korea and Hong Kong Young Sook Moon Hanyang University.
Effects of delayed implant protocols on performance, carcass characteristics and meat tenderness in Holstein steers J. L. Beckett, and J. Algeo Cal Poly.
1 Cooperation and conflict within couples: The gendered distribution of entitlement to household income ESPE Conference, Seville June 2009 Jérôme.
Perceived threat and dehumanization of ethnic minorities An experimental investigation Afrodita Marcu Supervisors: Dr Evanthia Lyons & Dr Peter Hegarty.
BEEF QUALITY: WHAT IS IT? — HOW TO PRODUCE IT Harlan Ritchie Department of Animal Science Michigan State University East Lansing, Michigan
1 Pertemuan Kesebelas Segmenting Markets. 2 Segmentation and Competitive Advantage Market segmentation is the process of placing the buyers in a product.
Meat Quality – using consumers to measure preferences P. Allen, A. White, K. Brandon & M. Henchion Teagasc Ashtown Food Research Centre.
DRAFT ONLY Sensory evaluation Foundation.
The future of Australia’s cattle industry: grass or grain? Address to ABARE Outlook Conference March 2006 Peter Barnard General Man ager Economic, Planning.
Sampling and Participants
Live Beef Evaluation & Pricing. History 1916 Standards for U.S. grades developed 1924 Market classes and grades of dressed beef developed 1927 Voluntary.
TERMS RELATED TO LIVESTOCK HARVEST. Objectives  Define anatomical terms important to livestock slaughter  Describe Market Readiness and the appropriate.
Established and supported under the Australian Government’s Cooperative Research Centres Program Functional Foods Program 3 Enhancing capacity to deliver.
Part 3 The Preparation of Food
Meat Science Jeopardy Jeopardy With your hosts, Mary Jo Manning, Mary Ellen Manning, and Peter Strom “Meat Science”
Glen Burke Business Development Manager Terrace Downs March 2011.
Trial exam review.
As a Producer, How Do I Hit that Target? Twig Marston Extension Beef Specialist K-State Research & Extension.
Meats Types, Nutritional Value, and Cooking Methods.
Global Edition Chapter Seven
THE ISSUES ISSUE 1: OLD COW BEEF How to describe cuts of beef from old cows that either fail to grade MSA three star or have not been MSA graded. ISSUE.
The effect of Marbling on Palatability Buenos Aires September 2008.
Chris R. Calkins, Ph.D Impacts of Distillers Grains Feeding on Carcass and Meat Characteristics.
People Ethical Treatment Animals People Eating Tasty Animals.
Canadian Beef Grading Agency. OVERVIEW Grading Beef & Bison in Canada Privatized delivery since 1996 Privatized delivery since 1996 Federally Regulated.
D.D. Boler, A.C. Dilger & E.K. Arkfeld University of Illinois S.D. Shackelford, D.A. King & T.L. Wheeler USDA-MARC Consistent, high quality pork will increase.
Meat Grading.
Producing Data: Experiments BPS - 5th Ed. Chapter 9 1.
A PACCP approach to grading Buenos Aires September 2008.
Cultural Food Study Food Tech (Language Experience) Investigation: How do our diverse cultural situations impact on our food consumption..?
Customer Segmentation Not all customers are the same. So stop taking a one-size-fits-all approach to your marketing and start segmenting your customers.
Introduction to Beef Cattle Bovine Humor Objectives Describe terms commonly used with beef cattle. Learning the language Identify external parts of.
Introduction to Beef Cattle Student Notes Objectives Describe terms commonly used with __________ __________. ___________ __________ _________of the.
AnSc 1101 Meat Grading. Outline Retail yield Inspection vs. grading Carcass Anatomy Quality Grading Yield Grading.
Introduction into Meat Science
Dr.P.Saradhamani. What is Market Segmentation? The process of breaking of buyers into groups that are different from each other but internally similar.
Livestock Evaluation And Selection
Beef Judging ANS4615.
Fresh Meat Extension Programming Opportunities
Introduction to Beef Cattle
Advertising: Identifying Target Markets ENG 12 - STEWART
BEEF CARCASS YIELD AND QUALITY GRADING
Overall salt level (% by wt) Free salt:Crystals (% by wt)
Beef Carcass and Primal Cuts Placing
People Ethical Treatment Animals People Eating Tasty Animals.
PROPERTY OF PIMA COUNTY JTED, 2010
Quality and Yield Grading
Presentation transcript:

Characterisation of Beef Palatability for Korean and Australian Consumers John Thompson, Rod Polkinghorne, Alan Gee Jong-Moon Lee, InHo Hwang and Kyungnam Kim John Thompson, Rod Polkinghorne, Alan Gee Jong-Moon Lee, InHo Hwang and Kyungnam Kim

Background  MSA is a carcass grading scheme which uses a predictive model to describe the palatability of beef  The MSA scheme is underpinned by consumer taste panel results  There is limited information on the influence of demographic factors on consumer scores for beef –Demographic effects on Sydney consumers –City Vs Country consumers –Japanese Vs Australian consumers  MSA is a carcass grading scheme which uses a predictive model to describe the palatability of beef  The MSA scheme is underpinned by consumer taste panel results  There is limited information on the influence of demographic factors on consumer scores for beef –Demographic effects on Sydney consumers –City Vs Country consumers –Japanese Vs Australian consumers

Background  Previous studies suggest that Korean consumers place more emphasis on taste and less on tenderness than consumers in western societies.  The question: Whether Australian and Korean consumers have the same goal posts in terms of meat quality, given the large geographical and cultural differences?  Previous studies suggest that Korean consumers place more emphasis on taste and less on tenderness than consumers in western societies.  The question: Whether Australian and Korean consumers have the same goal posts in terms of meat quality, given the large geographical and cultural differences?

Project Outline  Co-operative Project between Korea and Australia  Korean –National Livestock Research Institute, RDA staff at Suwon  Australian –Meat and Livestock Australia, Meat Standards Australia and Beef CRC  Co-operative Project between Korea and Australia  Korean –National Livestock Research Institute, RDA staff at Suwon  Australian –Meat and Livestock Australia, Meat Standards Australia and Beef CRC

Aims Overall objective  To examine sensory characteristics of Korean and Australian consumers. More specifically  To determine if Korean and Australian consumers differ in the way they score palatability of beef  The importance of demographic and design effects (cooking, treatment, muscle etc) effects on sensory responses from Korean and Australian consumers Overall objective  To examine sensory characteristics of Korean and Australian consumers. More specifically  To determine if Korean and Australian consumers differ in the way they score palatability of beef  The importance of demographic and design effects (cooking, treatment, muscle etc) effects on sensory responses from Korean and Australian consumers

Experimental Design Korea Australia 18 cattle 720 Korean Consumers 360 Australian Consumers Samples Hang (TS/AT) 3 muscles (Strip, Outside, Blade 2 cook (Grill/Korean BBQ)

Samples Hanwoo carcasses TS AT Blade Topside Striploin Grill Korean BBQ Blade Topside Striploin Grill Korean BBQ Australian carcasses TS AT Blade Topside Striploin Grill Korean BBQ Blade Topside Striploin Grill Korean BBQ Korean Consumers Australian Consumers Australian carcasses TS AT Blade Topside Striploin Grill Korean BBQ Blade Topside Striploin Grill Korean BBQ 216 samples

Carcasses

The carcasses Trait Australian Korean Cattle Cattle Carcass wt (kg) Fat depth 12rib (mm) Ossification score Marbling score AUSMeat US marbling pH ultimate Trait Australian Korean Cattle Cattle Carcass wt (kg) Fat depth 12rib (mm) Ossification score Marbling score AUSMeat US marbling pH ultimate

Korean - BBQ

Grills

Sensory Score Sheet

Sensory Scores Australian Korean Consumers Consumers Grill Tenderness6055 Juiciness6556 Flavour6457 Overall 6456 Korean BBQ Tenderness6563 Juiciness6762 Flavour6662 Overall 6662 Australian Korean Consumers Consumers Grill Tenderness6055 Juiciness6556 Flavour6457 Overall 6456 Korean BBQ Tenderness6563 Juiciness6762 Flavour6662 Overall 6662

How did consumers rate the beef? Grade

How did consumers rate the beef? Grade

How MSA Creates A Single Palatability Score TendernessX0.4 + JuicinessX0.1 + MSA score FlavourX0.2 + Overall LikingX0.3 TendernessX0.4 + JuicinessX0.1 + MSA score FlavourX0.2 + Overall LikingX0.3

Accuracy of predicting grade from sensory scores Consumer Group KoreanAustralian Grill 61%66% BBQ 59%63% Consumer Group KoreanAustralian Grill 61%66% BBQ 59%63%

MSA Grades Set by Test Results No Grade 3* 4* 5* No Grade 3* 4* 5*

Grade Cut-offs Australian Korean 2/3 3/4 4/5 2/33/4 4/5 Grill Korean BBQ

Grade Boundaries - Grills Korean Consumers Australian Consumers

Grade Boundaries – Korean BBQ Korean Consumers Australian Consumers

Treatment effects on palatability Grills (MQ4) Consumer BladeStriploinTopside AT TS AT TS AT TS Australian/ Angus Korean/ Angus Consumer BladeStriploinTopside AT TS AT TS AT TS Australian/ Angus Korean/ Angus

Treatment effects on palatability Korean BBQ (MQ4) ConsumerBlade StriploinTopside AT TS AT TS AT TS Australian/ Angus Korean/ Angus ConsumerBlade StriploinTopside AT TS AT TS AT TS Australian/ Angus Korean/ Angus

Conclusions  Korean consumers are more discriminating at the lower quality grades  The effects of hang, cook and cut on palatability were similar for Australian and Korean consumers  Korean consumers are more discriminating at the lower quality grades  The effects of hang, cook and cut on palatability were similar for Australian and Korean consumers

Implications  To Australia –The MSA model predicted palatability for Korean consumers –Potential for the MSA model to underpin an international language for meat quality  To Australia –The MSA model predicted palatability for Korean consumers –Potential for the MSA model to underpin an international language for meat quality

Demographic effects on Korean consumers  Factors tested –Region of Korea –Age of consumer –Gender –Occupation –How often do you eat meat –No. of adults in the household –No. of children in the household –How do you perceive beef –Level of doneness you prefer –Income bracket  Factors tested –Region of Korea –Age of consumer –Gender –Occupation –How often do you eat meat –No. of adults in the household –No. of children in the household –How do you perceive beef –Level of doneness you prefer –Income bracket

Demographic effects on Korean consumers  No demographic factors were significant for either Grill or Korean BBQ  Examples: GRILL MQ4 –Age effects Gender MaleFemale 5657  No demographic factors were significant for either Grill or Korean BBQ  Examples: GRILL MQ4 –Age effects Gender MaleFemale 5657

Implications  To Korea –The demographics of the Korean consumers did not impact on beef palatability –A consumer testing protocol for beef palatability to be used in Korea –The MSA model provides an opportunity to accurately predict palatability for Korean consumers  To Korea –The demographics of the Korean consumers did not impact on beef palatability –A consumer testing protocol for beef palatability to be used in Korea –The MSA model provides an opportunity to accurately predict palatability for Korean consumers