1. The latest eating quality science managing intramuscular fat and tenderness to improve the consumer eating experience Dave Pethick Lis Pannier & the Sheep CRC Meat Science Team

2. Topics 1.Meat Standards Australia – history/current 2.New traits Shear force tenderness Intramuscular fat MSA consumer taste panel 3.Predicting consumer taste panel response 4.MSA lamb Mark II – what it might look like ?

3. Where have we come from ?

4. Lamb loin tenderness in the 90’s 1997/98 retail audit – Safari et al. (2002) n = 907

5. MSA - underpinned by consumer testing Tenderness (0 – 100) Juiciness Liking of flavour Overall liking Unsatisfactory Good every day Better than every day Premium Science is recognised world wide

7. Real people – real answers !

8. Critical Control Points Value adding Cooking method Consumer Pre-slaughter control Genetics Sheep age Growth path (feed type & finishing) Pre-slaughter stress Ageing of meat Cut/ primal Hang Post-slaughter control Chillers JuicinessFlavourTendernessOverall Liking Conception Selling method Intramuscular fat

9. Meat Standards Australia lamb

11. MSA lamb - current Consumer focused model to underpin the eating quality of lamb It is a simple ‘in/out’ system with ‘rules’ for – Producers – Processors – Retailers

12. Requirements eg Fat score - GR ≥ 6mm (≥score 2) No eruption of permanent incisor teeth pH x temperature requirements (e-stimulation) Aging of meat for 5 days ………

13. Change is possible MSA data (2005) n = 806, optimal processing, fat & pH compliant

14. What’s missing ? Continuous improvement Genetic effects Carcase grading Cuts grading

15. The Information Nucleus ( 500 sires, 10,000 slaughter lambs) DORPER

16. Juiciness, flavour, tenderness 4.2 ± 0.04% (Xbred mean) Ideal 4-6% Mod/high heritability Called marbling in beef New traits (i) intramuscular fat

17. Mechanical measure of Tenderness (kg or Newtons) Higher value = tougher Measured after electrical stimulation and 5 days aging Gene markers for this trait in sheep (& beef) Intramuscular fat reduces it Mod/high heritability New traits (ii) shear force tenderness

18. Important correlations – genetic (2 years data 183 sires, 4,110 progeny) LMY vs IMF-ve mod/high BAD LMY vs SF5+ve mod BAD IMF vs SF5-ve high GOOD LMY = lean meat yield SF5 = Shear force tenderness day 5 IMF = intramuscular fat

19. So single focused selection on LMY will: Increase shear force (tougher) Reduce intramuscular fat (less juicy, less flavour & tougher) BUT LMY is totally important for lamb So how can we protect eating quality ?

20. Evolve an MSA Mark II Evolve an enhanced MSA lamb model Incorporating new Sheep CRC information Manage yield and eating quality Cuts grading

21. Eating quality But what does shear force and IMF mean to consumers ? Will they pay more ? ……

22. MSA Lamb mark II Grade cuts into: 2* - Unsatisfactory 3* - Good every day 4* - Better than every day 5* - Premium

23. n Ungrade 3*4*5* Mean1,85849%100%147%200% Willingness to pay data ( Price relative to 3*, n = number consumers) Australian consumers - lamb 3 star 4 star5 star

24. Sire variation – consumer tenderness (Pannier et al. unpublished) Loin tenderness Topside tenderness 97 sires, 745 lambs, 2 cuts per lamb, grilled

25. Sire variation – consumer tenderness Loin tenderness Topside tenderness 16 points 12 points

26. Likely sufficient to change rating 2* unsatisfactory 3* good every day 4* better than every day 5* premium

27. Sire variation – consumer tenderness Loin tenderness Topside tenderness 3*5*4*

28. Sire variation – consumer tenderness Loin tenderness Topside tenderness 3* 2*

29. Remember - this is with ‘optimal’ processing All carcases had e-stimulation Product aged for 5 days

30. What did consumers say about the 2 cuts ? Distribution of grades (745 lambs per cut) 2* 3* 4* 5* Short lion - 7343524 % Topside -294817 5 % Can we predict this grade ?

31. IMF vs MSA consumer score 6 9 9 11 IMF nails juicy and flavour

32. Shear force vs MSA consumer score 11 7 6 6 Shear force nails tenderness

33. Other correlates Carcase fatness Carcase muscling Lean meat yield Carcase wt Colour …………

34. MSA Mark II Currently too hard to measure shear force or intramuscular fat in the abattoir Currently cannot grade a lamb carcase commercially So EQ claims will be underpinned by: – in part the sires used – ideally carcase measures

35. Consumer score breeding value Use std genetic techniques to develop a consumer score breeding value for sires: – Consumer score – Shear force tenderness – Intramuscular fat – Lean Meat Yield – Other correlates ………… Support with genomic prediction Use the breeding value to underpin quality claims

36. MSA Mark II – 2 nd phase Grade individual carcases for LMY and meat quality Develop better LMY prediction ‘on line’ Develop meat quality and IMF measurement ‘on line’ – GR fat-o-meter II probe with electrical impedance – Wide wavelength vision system – Rhaman spectroscopy These are AMPC/MLA projects in progress

37. Conclusions Current MSA system is a simple no brainer Processors/retailers are seeing the benefits We still need producers to sign up – do it today ! However it does not allow for continuous improvement and lean meat yield interactions

38. Conclusions Meat science phenotypes - shear force tenderness and intramuscular fat – Heritable – We know the key production factors that effect them – Predictive of the consumer score – Interact with lean meat yield We will be able to develop a consumer score breeding value

39. Conclusions MSA mark II underpinned by consumer score sire breeding value Cuts based grading down star ratings Will allow us to select for Lean Meat Yield and Eating quality together

40. Conclusions Processors to their credit are investing in R&D for better carcase measurement systems Are we heading for carcase grading at last ? – Lean meat yield – Eating quality

41. Questions… Aussie lamb - premier meat on the Planet!

42. Quick reality check Getting 4* cuts in moderate carcase wt Sth beef Optimal processing ✔ No hormones ✔ Get’em young (< about 140 oss = 18-24 months) ✔ Have just enough marble = solid score 1 (4-6% IMF) ✔

43. Other correlates e.g LMY vs IMF LMY breeding value IMF breeding value