International perspective: characterisation of United States Department of Agriculture and Meat Standards Australia systems for assessing beef quality

The intent, in this manuscript, is to characterise the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA) andMeat Standards Australia (MSA) systems for assessing beef quality and to describe the research evidence that supports the principles involved in grade application. USDA beef quality grading standards rely on carcass-trait-only assessments of approximate ageof theanimal at harvest andamount of intramuscular fat (asmarbling) inside themuscles.USDAbeef quality grading started 82 years ago. Then, as now, because no traceability system was in place, each animal’s history (exact age, feeding regimen, management practices, etc.) was incomplete; those who assigned quality grades used indicators of age (physiological maturity) and plane of nutrition (amount of marbling), and they do so still. Since 1926, research studies have identified a multitude of palatability-determining live-animal factors (e.g. genetics, use of hormonal growth promotants, high-energy diet finishing) and carcass-treatment factors (e.g. electrical stimulation, tenderstretch carcass suspension, postmortem aging) that cannot be incorporated into a carcass-trait-only quality assessment system. The USA beef industry has depended on development of more than 100 beef brands – some using palatability assurance critical control point plans, total quality management (TQM) philosophies, USDA certification and process verification programs, or combinations of live-animal factors, carcass-treatment factors and carcass-trait constraints – to further differentiate fresh beef products. TheMSAgrading system is a TQMgrading approach that incorporates animal-specific traits (e.g. genetics, sex, age), control of certain pre-harvest andpost-harvest processes in the beef chain, cut-specific quality differences and consumer preferences, into a beef pricing system. A unique aspect of theMSA grading system is that the grades are assigned to cuts or muscles, not carcasses; cuts or muscles from the same carcass are assigned individual (and in many cases, different) grades that reflect differences in expected eating quality performance among the various cuts of beef further adjusted to reflect the influence of cut or muscle aging and alternative cooking methods. The MSA grading system is still being modified and refined (using results of an extensive, ongoing consumer testing program), but it represents the best existing example of a TQM grading approach for improving beef quality and palatability. Research studies have shown that the accuracy of palatability-level prediction byuse of the two systems –USDAquality grades forUS customers and consumers andMSAgrades forAustralian customers and consumers – is sufficient to justify their continued use for beef quality assessment.