The Meat Standards Australia Index indicates beef carcass quality

A simple index that reflects the potential eating quality of beef carcasses is very important for producer feedback. The Meat Standards Australia (MSA) Index reflects variation in carcass quality due to factors that are influenced by producers (hot carcass weight, rib fat depth, hump height, marbling and ossification scores along with milk fed veal category, direct or saleyard consignment, hormonal growth promotant status and sex). In addition, processor impacts on meat quality are standardised so that the MSA Index could be compared across time, breed and geographical regions. Hence, the MSA Index was calculated using achilles hung carcasses, aged for 5 days postmortem. Muscle pH can be impacted by production, transport, lairage or processing factors, hence the MSA Index assumes a constant pH of 5.6 and loin temperature of 7 o C for all carcasses. To quantify the cut weight distribution of the 39 MSA cuts in the carcass, 40 Angus steers were sourced from the low (n=13), high (n=15) and myostatin (n=12) muscling selection lines. The left side of each carcass was processed down to the 39 trimmed MSA cuts. There was no difference in MSA cut distribution between the low and high muscling lines (P>0.05), although there were differences with nine cuts from the myostatin line (P<0.05). There was no difference in the MSA Index calculated using actual muscle percentages and using the average from the low and high muscling lines (R 2 =0.99). Different cooking methods impacted via a constant offset between eating quality and carcass input traits (R 2 =1). The MSA Index calculated for the four most commercially important cuts was highly related to the index calculated using all 39 MSA cuts (R 2 =0.98), whilst the accuracy was lower for an index calculated using the striploin (R 2 =0.82). Therefore, the MSA Index was calculated as the sum of the 39 eating quality scores predicted at 5 days ageing, based on their most common cooking method, weighted by the proportions of the individual cut relative to total weight of all cuts. The MSA Index provides producers with a tool to assess the impact of management and genetic changes on the predicted eating quality of the carcass. The MSA Index could also be utilised for benchmarking and to track eating quality trends at farm, supply chain, regional, state or national levels

The variation in the eating quality of beef from different sexes and breed classes cannot be completely explained by carcass measurements

Delivering beef of consistent quality to the consumer is vital for consumer satisfaction and will help to ensure demand and therefore profitability within the beef industry. In Australia, this is being tackled with Meat Standards Australia (MSA), which uses carcass traits and processing factors to deliver an individual eating quality guarantee to the consumer for 135 different ‘cut by cooking methods’ from each carcass. The carcass traits used in the MSA model, such as ossification score, carcass weight and marbling explain the majority of the differences between breeds and sexes. Therefore, it was expected that the model would predict with eating quality of bulls and dairy breeds with good accuracy. In total, 8128 muscle samples from 482 carcasses from France, Poland, Ireland and Northern Ireland were MSA graded at slaughter then evaluated for tenderness, juiciness, flavour liking and overall liking by untrained consumers, according to MSA protocols. The scores were weighted (0.3, 0.1, 0.3, 0.3) and combined to form a global eating quality (meat quality (MQ4)) score. The carcasses were grouped into one of the three breed categories: beef breeds, dairy breeds and crosses. The difference between the actual and the MSA-predicted MQ4 scores were analysed using a linear mixed effects model including fixed effects for carcass hang method, cook type, muscle type, sex, country, breed category and postmortem ageing period, and random terms for animal identification, consumer country and kill group. Bulls had lower MQ4 scores than steers and females and were predicted less accurately by the MSA model. Beef breeds had lower eating quality scores than dairy breeds and crosses for five out of the 16 muscles tested. Beef breeds were also over predicted in comparison with the cross and dairy breeds for six out of the 16 muscles tested. Therefore, even after accounting for differences in carcass traits, bulls still differ in eating quality when compared with females and steers. Breed also influenced eating quality beyond differences in carcass traits. However, in this case, it was only for certain muscles. This should be taken into account when estimating the eating quality of meat. In addition, the coefficients used by the Australian MSA model for some muscles, marbling score and ultimate pH do not exactly reflect the influence of these factors on eating quality in this data set, and if this system was to be applied to Europe then the coefficients for these muscles and covariates would need further investigation

Biochemical measurements of beef are a good predictor of untrained consumer sensory scores across muscles

The ability of the biochemical measurements, haem iron, intramuscular fat (IMF%), moisture content, and total, soluble and insoluble collagen contents, to predict untrained consumer sensory scores both across different muscles and within the same muscle from different carcasses were investigated. Sensory scores from 540 untrained French consumers (tenderness, flavour liking, juiciness and overall liking) were obtained for six muscles; outside (m. biceps femoris), topside (m. semimembranosus), striploin (m. longissimus thoracis), rump (m. gluteus medius), oyster blade (m. infraspinatus) and tenderloin (m. psoas major) from each of 18 French and 18 Australian cattle. The four sensory scores were weighted and combined into a single score termed MQ4, which was also analysed. All sensory scores were highly correlated with each other and with MQ4. This in part reflects the fact that MQ4 is derived from the consumer scores for tenderness, juiciness, flavour and overall liking and also reflects an interrelationship between the sensory scores themselves and in turn validates the use of the MQ4 term to reflect the scope of the consumer eating experience. When evaluated across the six different muscles, all biochemical measurements, except soluble collagen, had a significant effect on all of the sensory scores and MQ4. The average magnitude of impact of IMF%, haem iron, moisture content, total and insoluble collagen contents across the four different sensory scores are 34.9, 5.1, 7.2, 36.3 and 41.3, respectively. When evaluated within the same muscle, only IMF% and moisture content had a significant effect on overall liking (5.9 and 6.2, respectively) and flavour liking (6.1 and 6.4, respectively). These results indicate that in a commercial eating quality prediction model including muscle type, only IMF% or moisture content has the capacity to add any precision. However, all tested biochemical measurements, particularly IMF% and insoluble collagen contents, are strong predictors of eating quality when muscle type is not known. This demonstrates their potential usefulness in extrapolating the sensory data derived from these six muscles to other muscles with no sensory data, but with similar biochemical parameters, and therefore reducing the amount of future sensory testing required

Review: The variability of the eating quality of beef can be reduced by predicting consumer satisfaction

Publication history: Accepted - 22 February 2018; Published online - 2 April 2018The Meat Standards Australia (MSA) grading scheme has the ability to predict beef eating quality for each ‘cut×cooking method combination’ from animal and carcass traits such as sex, age, breed, marbling, hot carcass weight and fatness, ageing time, etc. Following MSA testing protocols, a total of 22 different muscles, cooked by four different cooking methods and to three different degrees of doneness, were tasted by over 19 000 consumers from Northern Ireland, Poland, Ireland, France and Australia. Consumers scored the sensory characteristics (tenderness, flavor liking, juiciness and overall liking) and then allocated samples to one of four quality grades: unsatisfactory, good-every-day, better-than-every-day and premium. We observed that 26% of the beef was unsatisfactory. As previously reported, 68% of samples were allocated to the correct quality grades using the MSA grading scheme. Furthermore, only 7% of the beef unsatisfactory to consumers was misclassified as acceptable. Overall, we concluded that an MSA-like grading scheme could be used to predict beef eating quality and hence underpin commercial brands or labels in a number of European countries, and possibly the whole of Europe. In addition, such an eating quality guarantee system may allow the implementation of an MSA genetic index to improve eating quality through genetics as well as through management. Finally, such an eating quality guarantee system is likely to generate economic benefits to be shared along the beef supply chain from farmers to retailors, as consumers are willing to pay more for a better quality product.This research was supported by Meat and Livestock Australia and Murdoch University. Data were obtained through the financial contributions of the European research project ProSafeBeef (contract no. FOOD-CT-2006-36241), the Polish ProOptiBeef Farm to Fork project funded by the EU Innovative (POIG.01.03.01-00-204/09), the French ‘Direction Générale de l’Alimentation’ and FranceAgriMer. For the Irish data, the authors acknowledge the financial support of the Department of Agriculture and the Marine (DAFM) under the Food Institutional Research Measure (FIRM). Furthermore, this project would not have been possible without the practical support of the Association Institut du Charolais, the Syndicat de Défense et du promotion de la Viande de Boeuf de Charolles and the gourmet restaurants ‘Jean Denaud’ and representatives of the beef industry across Europe. The international travel required for this project has been funded by ‘Egide/Fast’ funds from the French and Australian governments, respectively (project no. FR090054) and by ‘Egide/Polonium’ funds from the French and Polish governments, respectively. The assistance and participation of the Beef CRC and Janine Lau (MLA, Australia), Alan Gee (Cosign, Australia), Ray Watson (Melbourne University, Australia) and John Thompson (UNE) are also gratefully acknowledged

Cut Diagrams for High Energy Scatterings

A new approach is introduced to study QCD amplitudes at high energy and comparatively small momentum transfer. Novel cut diagrams, representing resummation of Feynman diagrams, are used to simplify calculation and to avoid delicate cancellations encountered in the usual approach. Explicit calculation to the 6th order is carried out to demonstrate the advantage of cut diagrams over Feynman diagrams.Comment: uu-encoded file containing a latex manuscript with 14 postscript figure

Characterization of anticoagulant heparinoids by immunoprofiling

Heparinoids are used in the clinic as anticoagulants. A specific pentasaccharide in heparinoids activates antithrombin III, resulting in inactivation of factor Xa and–when additional saccharides are present–inactivation of factor IIa. Structural and functional analysis of the heterogeneous heparinoids generally requires advanced equipment, is time consuming, and needs (extensive) sample preparation. In this study, a novel and fast method for the characterization of heparinoids is introduced based on reactivity with nine unique anti-heparin antibodies. Eight heparinoids were biochemically analyzed by electrophoresis and their reactivity with domain-specific anti-heparin antibodies was established by ELISA. Each heparinoid displayed a distinct immunoprofile matching its structural characteristics. The immunoprofile could also be linked to biological characteristics, such as the anti-Xa/anti-IIa ratio, which was reflected by reactivity of the heparinoids with antibodies HS4C3 (indicative for 3-O-sulfates) and HS4E4 (indicative for domains allowing anti-factor IIa activity). In addition, the immunoprofile could be indicative for heparinoid-induced side-effects, such as heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, as illustrated by reactivity with antibody NS4F5, which defines a very high sulfated domain. In conclusion, immunoprofiling provides a novel, fast, and simple methodology for the characterization of heparinoids, and allows high-throughput screening of (new) heparinoids for defined structural and biological characteristics

Should science educators deal with the science/religion issue?

I begin by examining the natures of science and religion before looking at the ways in which they relate to one another. I then look at a number of case studies that centre on the relationships between science and religion, including attempts to find mechanisms for divine action in quantum theory and chaos theory, creationism, genetic engineering and the writings of Richard Dawkins. Finally, I consider some of the pedagogical issues that would need to be considered if the science/religion issue is to be addressed in the classroom. I conclude that there are increasing arguments in favour of science educators teaching about the science/religion issue. The principal reason for this is to help students better to learn science. However, such teaching makes greater demands on science educators than has generally been the case. Certain of these demands are identified and some specific suggestions are made as to how a science educator might deal with the science/religion issue. © 2008 Taylor & Francis