Opportunities for predicting and manipulating beef quality

Transcription

1 Opportunities for predicting and manipulating beef quality (ICoMST Meat Science 92 (2012) ) Jean-François Hocquette a R Botreau a, B Picard a, A Jacquet b, DW Pethick c, ND Scollan d a INRA, Theix, France, b INAO, Caen, France, c Murdoch University, Perth, Australia, d IBERS, Aberystwyth University, UK 1

2 New challenges for livestock breeding in developed countries In developed countries, general saturation of its market High-quality products demanded but what does this mean? Eating quality Visual appeal Enhanced safety Healthiness Improved environmental / carbon footprint Country and region of origin???? Hence the definition of quality is evolving and expanding. 2

3 The definition of quality Intrinsic quality refers to the characteristics of the product itself and includes safety, healthiness, sensory traits (e.g. tenderness, flavor, juiciness, overall liking), convenience, etc. Extrinsic quality refers to traits which are associated with the product, namely (i) production system characteristics (from the animal to the processing stages including for example animal welfare, carbon footprint), and (ii) marketing variables (including price, brand name, distribution, origin, packaging, labelling, and traceability) Luning, Marcelis & Jongen, 2002; Grunert, Bredahl, & Brunso,

4 1. Intrinsic quality traits Outline 1.1. Composition of the muscle tissue 1.2. Overall beef quality 1.3. Aggregation of measures related to the different intrinsic quality traits 2. Extrinsic quality traits 2.1. The increasing importance of extrinsic quality traits 2.2. Existing quality labels with regard to extrinsic quality traits 2.3. Future research priorities to better predict and to enhance quality Hocquette el al. (2012). Meat Science 92 (2012)

5 How muscle biochemistry affects beef quality Muscle fibres (number, size, type) Adipocytes JUICINESS Connective Tissue Blood capillaries COLOUR FLAVOUR TENDERNESS Fatty acid compostion (nutritional value) Adapted from: 5

6 Relationships between Meat Quality attributes and Muscle Characteristics Flavour Score* Tenderness Score* * Cooking temperature = 55 C Renand, Picard, Touraille, Berge, & Lepetit(2001). Meat Science, 59,

7 Genomics brings new markers of quality Candidate gene approach Genomics Quality variability Marbling Biological hypothesis to be tested Detect genes related to quality variability Data integration Candidate A-FABP, leptin, gene G6PDH studies (SNP, mrna, proteins) Jurie et al, 2007, Bonnet et al, 2007 Whole genome analyses (SNP, transcriptomics, proteomics) Depict mechanisms Find markers of phenotypes Genome Cassar-Malek et al., Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture, 2008, 48,

8 A first challenge: genomic selection The key objective is to establish ever more fine-grained functional relationships between genomic markers and their phenotypes Genotype Phenotype Growth Marbling Meat tenderness Nutritional efficiency and GHG production The genomic selection is also an opportunity to consider new and complex phenotypes (e.g. adaptation, robustness) if we are able to measure them! One Euro invested for genomic selection, three Euros earned (Fest IA, 2012). 8

9 A second challenge: gene and protein expression related to tenderness. DNAJA1: A negative marker for tenderness (patented) Expression level of DNAJA1 (Hsp40)with DNA chips Expression level of DNAJA1 by RT-PCR Log 2 (I ech / I ref) 1,4 Bulls (n=25) Steers (n=23) 1,2 1 R 2 = 0,20 0,8 0,6 R 2 = 0,43 0,4 0, , ,4-0,6 Tenderness scores Bernard et al., J. Agric. Food Chem., 55, ,5E-06 4,0E-06 3,5E-06 3,0E-06 2,5E-06 2,0E-06 1,5E-06 1,0E-06 5,0E Concentration (ng/µl)

10 Take home message of the genomics work Markers of beef tenderness have been identified but they are often breed-specific markers. However, some gene families (including those related to muscle fiber types and heat shock proteins) are likely to be associated with beef quality in all breeds. 10

11 1. Intrinsic quality traits Outline 1.1. Composition of the muscle tissue 1.2. Overall beef quality 1.3. Aggregation of measures related to the different intrinsic quality traits 2. Extrinsic quality traits 2.1. The increasing importance of extrinsic quality traits 2.2. Existing quality labels with regard to extrinsic quality traits 2.3. Future research priorities to better predict and to enhance quality 11

12 Prediction of beef quality in Australia the Meat Standards Australia system Prediction 12

13 A change in marbling score from 130 to 300 changes palatability of the Cube Roll and Point End Rump 13

14 How the Meat Standards Australia system works? Predictors Breed (2-10) restricted to Bosindicus content Gender (2) Growth path (10) carcass wt ossification score Milk fed veal Hanging (0-10) Marble score (2-10) Ageing: 5d min (0-6) Cooking method (0-12) Muscle (30) phu Rib fat It works in Korea, the USA, France, Japan, Northern Ireland and the Irish Republic 14

15 Fats and healthiness: Bauchart et al., EAAP, Bled 15

16 The nutritional value of meat 16

17 1. Intrinsic quality traits Outline 1.1. Composition of the muscle tissue 1.2. Overall beef quality 1.3. Aggregation of measures related to the different intrinsic quality traits 2. Extrinsic quality traits 2.1. The increasing importance of extrinsic quality traits 2.2. Existing quality labels with regard to extrinsic quality traits 2.3. Future research priorities to better predict and to enhance quality 17

18 Aggregation of measures related to the different intrinsic quality traits The questionis: is it possibleto have afullycombined criteria? Sensory Intrinsic quality 18

19 How to combine these different criteria of quality? Some intuitive methods 1. Analysis by an expert: done by traditional butchers in Europe. Not transparent and also not consistent across experts. 2. Conversion of quality traits into value-scores (e.g. quantitative information) which are then compounded (e.g. the MSA system based on a weighted sum) 3. Other methods developed for Welfare (Welfare Quality ) 19

20 1. Intrinsic quality traits Outline 1.1. Composition of the muscle tissue 1.2. Overall beef quality 1.3. Aggregation of measures related to the different intrinsic quality traits 2. Extrinsic quality traits 2.1. The increasing importance of extrinsic quality traits 2.2. Existing quality labels with regard to extrinsic quality traits 2.3. Future research priorities to better predict and to enhance quality 20

21 The increasing importance of extrinsic quality traits The demand for livestock products in the future is likely to be moderated by socio-economic factors such as human health concerns, the cost of the product and changing socio-cultural values (such as concerns for animal welfare and carbon footprint of the products) (Thornton, 2010) Thornton, P. K. (2010). Livestock production: Recent trends, future prospects. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B, 365,

22 The combination of intrinsic and extrinsic quality traits Income GHG OVERALL QUALITY resulting from the combination of intrinsic & extrinsic quality Social Workload Sensory Botreau,

23 Beef production costs and prices in different countries Production costs Euros / 100 kg Ireland Spain France Italy Austria Canada USA Sweden Germany Argentina China Poland Brazil Selling prices Euros / 100 kg Sarzeau et al., Renc. Rech. Ruminants

24 1. Intrinsic quality traits Outline 1.1. Composition of the muscle tissue 1.2. Overall beef quality 1.3. Aggregation of measures related to the different intrinsic quality traits 2. Extrinsic quality traits 2.1. The increasing importance of extrinsic quality traits 2.2. Existing quality labels with regard to extrinsic quality traits 2.3. Future research priorities to better predict and to enhance quality 24

25 The concepts of designation of origin and geographical indication Example: wine production BIOLOGICAL FACTORS (raw material production: varieties, breeds,...) TERROIR (local area) Regional product (with old fame of its geographic name) PHYSICAL FACTORS OF REGIONS (geology, pedology, relief, climate, ) HUMAN FACTORS (collective set of techniques and customs )

26 The different official quality marks in Europe and France Protected designationof Protected geographical Traditional Speciality Organic farming Label Rouge origin (PDO) indication (PGI) Guaranteed (STG) EU France

27 Numbers and values of PDO/PGI meat products in European countries Number values (108 8 euros) Euros) France Germany Italy Portugal Spain Any other country

28 The four PDO beef meat products in France (niche markets) 2004 / producers 2500 animals in supermarkets and 12 restaurants producers 600 animals in butchers providers 1000 animals in sale points (butchers) 1996 / producers 600 animals in butchers

29 1. Intrinsic quality traits Outline 1.1. Composition of the muscle tissue 1.2. Overall beef quality 1.3. Aggregation of measures related to the different intrinsic quality traits 2. Extrinsic quality traits 2.1. The increasing importance of extrinsic quality traits 2.2. Existing quality labels with regard to extrinsic quality traits 2.3. Future research priorities to better predict and to enhance quality (from a workshop held in Theix, France, Sept 9-10, 2009) 29

30 Future priorities to better predict beef quality The existing knowledge is not fully applied for economic, social or political reasons and progress should be made in that direction. The beef industry is generally conservative and thus reluctant to any change. A great change in mindset is required to develop payment on the basis of beef quality instead of quantitative meat production or carcass conformation and fatness alone. Scollan et al., Animal Production Science, 2011, 51,

31 Future priorities to better predict beef quality An environmental index should be developed for animal products to take into account the carbon footprint, water, energy use and also the fact that ruminants turn low quality raw material (cellulose/low quality protein) such as grass into highly nutritious food. This implies the development of an aggregation of environmental measures. Energy use Environmental Index Scollan et al., Animal Production Science, 2011, 51,

32 GHG emissions/kg of beef for EU member states 2.6 Lesschen et al., Animal Feed Science and Technology (2011) 16 28

33 The determinants of the Product Competitive Position Financial help Involvement of the institutions Research and development Promotion Typicity Price Convenience Taste Symbolic components Product specificity Public supports Product competitive position Market attractiveness Sector s image Substitutes Imitations Consumption trend Effectiveness of the coordination Code of practice Governance structure Quality management Promotional strategies Research policies Lobbying capacity Barjolle et al,

34 CONCLUSIONS Consumer satisfaction when eating beef is a complex response based on objective and emotional assessments of the product. Combining intrinsic and extrinsic quality traits by relevant and new methods is a key driver for the future. The MSA system can predict with a good accuracy the palatability of beef. Combining the MSA system and the PDO/PGI system is a practical way to ensure palatability and to satisfy the symbolic demand of consumers and citizens related to images of origin. Both systems are not in competition but could help each other. 34

35 One efficient method to improve beef consumption is Communication. We must have consumers wanting to buy beef. Don t be afraid to say I love beef